Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seidlitz v. County of Faribault, 55 N.W.2d 308.

42 citing documents.

Anderson v. County of Stearns 519 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Anderson v. County of Stearns 519 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
§ 106.471 (1955); Seidlitz v. Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358, 360
In Re the Redetermination of Benefits of Nicollet County Ditch 86A 488 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re the Redetermination of Benefits of Nicollet County Ditch 86A 488 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
“[BJefore there can be an assessment against land from which water drains into the ditch there must be a beneficial drainage.” Seidlitz v. Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358, 364
County of Swift v. Boyle 481 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
County of Swift v. Boyle 481 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Seidlitz v. Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358, 360-61 , -11 (1952).
In re County of Douglas Joint County Ditch No. 4 419 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re County of Douglas Joint County Ditch No. 4 419 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358, 364 , the supreme court stated: 4.
Maxwell v. County of Freeborn 386 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Petition of Ittel 386 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Petition of Ittel 386 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358
Maxwell v. County of Freeborn 386 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358, 360-61 , -11 (1952).
State Ex Rel. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources v. Kandiyohi County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 359 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1984
State Ex Rel. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources v. Kandiyohi County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 359 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1984
In Seidlitz v. County of Faribault, 237 Minn. 358 , the court stated: In a proceeding for repair, under § 106.-471, the principal objective is to clean out and restore the drainage system to its original condition.
Oelke v. County of Faribault 110 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1961
Oelke v. County of Faribault 110 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 1961
In In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County; 237 Minn. 358, 362 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308, 311 , we said: “Whether land involved in a drainage proceeding has been benefited is a question of fact.
Aastad v. Board of County Commissioners 110 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1961
Aastad v. Board of County Commissioners 110 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1961
See, In re County Ditch No. 67, 151 Minn. 292 , ; In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 ; Alden v. County of Todd, 140 Minn. 175 , .
Rekedall v. County of Redwood 102 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1960
Rekedall v. County of Redwood 102 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1960
In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin and Faribault Counties, 238 Minn. 165 , 56 N. W. (2d) 435 , 57 N. W. (2d) 29 ; In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 .” An important issue presented by this appeal is whether the appellants are parties aggrieved by a final order made in a judicial ditch proceeding.
Hemze v. County of Renville 95 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1959
Hemze v. County of Renville 95 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1959
2 In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 , and Johnson v. County of Steele, 240 Minn. 154 , 60 N. W. (2d) 32 , relied upon by appellants, do not compel a contrary result.
In Re Petition of Abel 253 Minn. 452 Minn. 1958
Fairmont Real Estate & Investment Co. v. County of Martin 92 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1958
In Re Petition of Abel 253 Minn. 452 Minn. 1958
(2d) 29 , and In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N.W.
Fairmont Real Estate & Investment Co. v. County of Martin 92 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1958
Appellant also argues that in In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin and Faribault Counties, 238 Minn. 165 , 56 N. W. (2d) 435 , 57 N. W. (2d) 29 , and In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 , the county appears as one of the parties.
In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, Martin County 91 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1958
In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, Martin County 91 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1958
Town of Dovray v. Nelson, 145 Minn. 31, 33 , ; In re Judicial Ditch No. 12, 227 Minn. 482 , 36 N. W. (2d) 336 , certiorari denied, 337 U. S. 938 , 69 S. Ct. 1514 , 93 L. ed. 1743; In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 ; In re County Ditch No. 31 and Judicial Ditch No. 13, Faribault County, 244 Minn. 543 , 70 N. W. (2d) 853 .
In Re Petition of Lippmann 81 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1957
In Re Petition of Lippmann 81 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1957
In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin and Faribault Counties, 238 Minn. 165 , 56 N. W. (2d) 435 , 57 N. W. (2d) 29 ; In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 .
Oelke v. County of Faribault 70 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1955
Oelke v. County of Faribault 70 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 1955
In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 .
Braun v. County of Renville 70 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
Braun v. County of Renville 70 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
As this court stated in In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault County, 237 Minn. 358, 361 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 , 311: *540 “In determining whether an assessment for benefits in a drainage proceeding may be sustained, certain legal principles must be observed.
Gee v. County of Renville 64 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1954
Gee v. County of Renville 64 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1954
In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, Faribault Co. 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 ; In re County Ditch No. 67, Murray Co. 151 Minn. 292 , .
In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 1, Yellow Medicine County 62 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1954
In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 1, Yellow Medicine County 62 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1954
2 This rule is well stated *9 in this court’s recent opinion in In re Petition for Repair of Co. Ditch No. 1, Faribault Co. 237 Minn. 358, 361 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308, 311 , where we said: “In determining whether an assessment for benefits in a drainage proceeding may be sustained, certain legal principles must be observed.
In Re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin & Faribault Counties 238 Minn. 165 Minn. 1952
Laue v. County of Faribault 56 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1952
In Re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin & Faribault Counties 238 Minn. 165 Minn. 1952
In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N.W.
Laue v. County of Faribault 56 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1952
In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358 , 55 N. W. (2d) 308 .