Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moose v. Vesey, 29 N.W.2d 649.

30 citing documents.

State v. Patterson 812 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2012
State v. Patterson 812 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2012
See Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 69
State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. Ltd., -585 (Minn.1977); Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 67
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 69
Chahla v. City of St. Paul 507 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Chahla v. City of St. Paul 507 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 67 , the supreme court refused to consider evidence of a plat not received in evidence in a zoning case where the plat was inconclusive and controvertible and where it would have been received for the purpose of granting a reversal.
Carlson v. Mutual Service Insurance 494 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1993
Carlson v. Mutual Service Insurance 494 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1993
Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd., Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64
Park Elm Homeowner's Ass'n v. Mooney 398 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Park Elm Homeowner's Ass'n v. Mooney 398 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Company, Ltd., (citing Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , ).
Mm v. Rrm 358 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
M.M. v. R.R.M. 358 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mm v. Rrm 358 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 68
M.M. v. R.R.M. 358 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 68
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. State 313 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1981
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. State 313 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1981
Following the holding in Hamm v. State, 225 Minn. 64 , this court recently concluded there must be a substantial disparity in assessment ratios before an equal protection violation is found.
Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd. 261 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1977
Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd. 261 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1977
Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , Holtberg v. Bommersbach, 235 Minn. 553 , 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1522.
State v. Larson 195 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1972
State v. Larson 195 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1972
2 In so deciding we do not intend to overrule Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , in which we said: “An appeal must be decided solely upon the evidence actually produced in the court below, and any plat or instrument not so produced and received in evidence is a mere fugitive paper, which may not be considered by the appellate court, even though its intended use is solely
Knutson Hotel Corp. v. City of Moorhead 84 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1957
Knutson Hotel Corp. v. City of Moorhead 84 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1957
The sufficiency of the verification of an official plat is within the discretion of the trial court (Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , 29 N. W. [2d] 649), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case.
Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 58 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1953
Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 58 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1953
3 Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 238 Minn. 322 , 56 N. W. (2d) 655 ; Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , 29 N. W. (2d) 649 .
In Re Dissolution of E. C. Warner Co. 45 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1950
In Re Dissolution of E. C. Warner Co. 45 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1950
See, Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , 29 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
2 We so held in Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64 , 29 N. W. (2d) 649 , with respect to inconclusive and controvertible documents such as a plat not received in evidence.