Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In RE PETITION OF HAMM v. State, 95 N.W.2d 649.

52 citing documents.

County of Aitkin, relators v. Blandin Paper Company 883 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2016
County of Aitkin, relators v. Blandin Paper Company 883 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2016
The Counties rely on Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, and Orchard Gardens Country Club, to support their argument.
Harris v. County of Hennepin 679 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2004
Harris v. County of Hennepin 679 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2004
Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959).
Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue 505 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1993
Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue 505 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1993
XIV, even though the property so discriminated against be not assessed higher than its fair market value adopted as a uniform basis in the making of assessments.” Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959) (overruled in part on other grounds by United Nat’l ).
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. County of Ramsey 461 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1990
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. County of Ramsey 461 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1990
Minnesota case law, after the Hamm [v. State, 255 Minn. 64 , ] decision, interpreted the “same taxing district" to be the city or township where the property was located.
Empire State Bank v. Lyon County 454 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1990
Empire State Bank v. Lyon County 454 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1990
Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959) (overruled in part on other grounds by United Nat’l ).
Minnegasco, Inc. v. County of Carver 447 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1989
Minnegasco, Inc. v. County of Carver 447 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1989
See, Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959).
Kuiters v. County of Freeborn 430 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1988
Kuiters v. County of Freeborn 430 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1988
We have stated that “[t]he right to uniformity and equality is the right to equal treatment in the apportionment of the tax burden.” Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70
Short v. County of Hennepin 353 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1984
In Re Objection to Real Property Taxes 353 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1984
In Re Objection to Real Property Taxes 353 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1984
Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70
Short v. County of Hennepin 353 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1984
Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70
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.
Space Center, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 302 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1981
Space Center, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 302 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1981
However, in making the earlier appraisal Boblett was not determining market value in the “willing seller and willing buyer” sense, In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 66 , but, as he stated in his written appraisal: “Fair market value as used in this report is considered to be the cost to the user of acquiring a similar facility for their present use.”
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
McCannel v. County of Hennepin 301 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1980
In a leading Minnesota case on this issue, In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64 , this court stated: The right to uniformity and equality is the right to equal treatment in the apportionment of the tax burden.
United National Corp. v. County of Hennepin 299 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1980
Orchard Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Commissioner 294 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1980
Orchard Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Commissioner 294 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1980
Respondent relies additionally on the case of In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64
United National Corp. v. County of Hennepin 299 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1980
In the leading case of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959), this court declared: “discrimination in the imposition of the tax burden, resulting from systematic, arbitrary, or intentional undervaluation of some property as compared to the valuation of other property in the same class, violates the uniformity clause of Minn.Const.
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
Contos v. Herbst 278 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1979
See In re Petition of Dulton Realty, Inc. v. State, supra; In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 566 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Bethke v. County of Brown 223 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1974
Ploetz v. County of Hennepin 223 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1974
Bethke v. County of Brown 223 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1974
We there said ( 270 Minn. 20 , ): “* * * it is noticeable that while cities, villages, and towns are referred to as taxing or assessment districts in various statutes, nowhere is there any reference to the county as such a district.” In In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , we said: “It follows that discrimination in the imposition of the tax burden, resulting from systematic, arbitrary, or intentional undervaluation of some property as compared to the valuation of other property i
Ploetz v. County of Hennepin 223 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1974
We said in In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , : “The right to uniformity and equality is the right to equal *414 treatment in the apportionment of the tax burden.
Village of Burnsville v. Commissioner of Taxation 202 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1972
Village of Burnsville v. Commissioner of Taxation 202 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1972
The usual selling price, as stated in In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 66 , is “the price that could be obtained in a private sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer.” A finding that, because of a restricted use, the land had a higher value that what otherwise would be the value of the highest use of property so situated was not compelled in the ab
Johnson v. County of Ramsey 187 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1971
Distinguished Johnson v. County of Ramsey 187 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1971
In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64 , 95 N. W. (2d) 649 , discusses the right to uniformity in the assessment of property within a taxing district.
Bade v. Drachman 417 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Dulton Realty, Inc. v. State 132 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1964
Dulton Realty, Inc. v. State 132 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1964
In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64 , 95 N. W. (2d) 649 .
Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 117 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1962
Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 117 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1962
In In re Petition of Hamm v. State, *8 255 Minn. 64 , 95 N. W. (2d) 649 , a proceeding in district court to obtain reduction of an assessment, we said that absolute equality is impracticable of attainment and the taxpayer may not complain unless the inequality is substantial, and that while good faith alone does not justify an assessment that is discriminatory in fact
Wagner v. Commissioner of Taxation 104 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1960
Wagner v. Commissioner of Taxation 104 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1960
It is clear from our decision in In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64 , 95 N. W. (2d) 649 , that even though land is assessed at less than its true value, which is customary practice in this and other states, the market valuation placed upon it must not be substantially in excess of the market valuation placed upon other property of the same class.
Meadowbrook Manor, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park 104 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1960
Meadowbrook Manor, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park 104 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1960
The city relies on In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 71 , 95 N. W. (2d) 649, 655 .
State v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 100 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1959
State v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 100 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1959
Our recent decision of In re Petition of Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64 , 95 N. W. (2d) 649 , is wholly inapplicable to the present case.