Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d 800.

123 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. McMaster v. Benson 495 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
4 (1990); Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 118
Weber v. Eisentrager 490 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Weber v. Eisentrager 490 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
23, 1987) (quoting Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 112 , ).
H.D. v. White 483 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
H.D. v. White 483 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Id.; accord Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 107 , -17 (1957).
Andrews v. Benson 476 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Andrews v. Benson 476 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 107 , (regarding Minn.Stat.
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1991
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1991
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108-09 , (“reasonable time” cannot be so brief as to amount to practical denial of opportunity to pursue claim); see also Kozisek v. Brigham, 169 Minn. 57, 60 , 210 N.W.
State of Ga. Ex Rel. Brooks v. Braswell 460 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State of Ga. Ex Rel. Brooks v. Braswell 460 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 118
K.E. v. Hoffman 452 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
K.E. v. Hoffman 452 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
at 558-59 (quoting Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 119 , ): Respondents’ argument is without merit.
Francis v. Hansing 449 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Town of Belle Prairie v. Kliber 448 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Town of Belle Prairie v. Kliber 448 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 112
Maeser v. COOK, VOEGELE AND NELSON, PA 446 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Maeser v. COOK, VOEGELE AND NELSON, PA 446 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
5 (1988); see Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 99, 106-07 , 816 (1957).
Thorp v. Price Bros. Co. 441 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale 435 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1989
Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale 435 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1989
Wi-chelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 118 , Minn.Stat.
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“Retrospective legislation in general * * * will not be allowed to impair rights which are vested and which constitute property rights.” Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 107
Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 111 , (citation omitted).
Padrnos v. City of Nisswa 409 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Padrnos v. City of Nisswa 409 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 112
In Re Tveten 402 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1987
In Re Tveten 402 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1987
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 119
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 387 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 387 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 380 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 380 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
In Wichelmen v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88 , the court stated that the constitutional prohibition against retroactive application of law does not apply to statutes of limitations.
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 368 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 368 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he constitutional prohibitions against retrospective legislation do not apply to statutes of limitation, ‘for such a statute will bar any right, however, high the source from which it may be deduced, provided that a reasonable time is given a party to enforce his right.’ ” Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108
Henley v. County of Chisago 370 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Henley v. County of Chisago 370 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Ravenna Township at 219 ; Township of Sterling v. Griffin 309 Minn. 230, 235 , Wichelman v. *925 Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 112
Tiedeken v. Tiedeken 363 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tiedeken v. Tiedeken 363 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[Cjourts will not inquire into the wisdom of the exercise of this discretion by the legislature in fixing the period of legal bar, unless the time allowed is manifestly so short as to amount to a practical denial of justice.” Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108 , quoting Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 167, 169 , 47 N.W.
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108
State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1981
State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1981
“A statute will not be declared void for vagueness and uncertainty where the meaning thereof may be implied, or where it employs words in common use, or words commonly understood * * * or [having] an unmistakable significance in the connection in which they are employed.” (quoting Wichelman v. Missner, 250 Minn. 88, 111 , ).
Invention Marketing, Inc. v. Spannaus 279 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1979
Invention Marketing, Inc. v. Spannaus 279 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1979
The standard of review which is applicable here was set forth in Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 111 , , 71 A.L.R.2d 816, 839 (1957): “A statute will not be declared void for vagueness and uncertainty where the meaning thereof may be implied, or where it employs words in common use, or words commonly understood, or words previously judicially defined, or having a settled meaning in law, or a t
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
This result is caused in part by the decision in Wichelman v. Messner, 1957, 250 Minn. 88 , , where the so called ‘40 year law’ was held inapplicable to mineral interests owned separately from surface interests.
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc. 256 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1977
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc. 256 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1977
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88
Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, Inc. v. State 252 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by