Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State, by Lord v. Frisby, 108 N.W.2d 769.

41 citing documents.

In the Matter of Stevens County for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The supreme court has stated that the use of “shall” in a statute may be interpreted as directory—and not mandatory—if the statute “provide[s] no consequence for noncompliance.” Hans Hagen Homes, ( see also Wenger v. Wenger, 274 N.W.
Luz Hernandez, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista , 1 (Minn. 2007) (citing Lord v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 76, 3 (1961) (“[G]enerally[,] .
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State by Lord v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 77, d 769, 773 (1961).
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
rly where, as here, substantial commitments have been made.”); Sullivan v. Credit River Twp., 299 Minn. 170, 176-77 , (holding that statute that “does not declare the consequences of a failure to comply may be construed as a directory statute” and failure to comply with statute does not necessarily invalidate actions taken pursuant to statute); see also State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 76 , (stating that “where the provisions of the statute do not relate to the essence of the thing to be done, are
State v. Hester 796 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2011
State v. Hester 796 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2011
Hester contends that we rely on the test set forth in State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 , to determine when a statute is mandatory and when a statute is directory.
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 117.115 is “not a jurisdictional prerequisite”); State by Lord v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 76-77 , (holding that Minn.Stat.
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
260 Minn. 70, 76 , see also Sullivan v. Credit River Twp., 299 Minn. 170, 176-77 , (stating that when a statute fails to provide consequences for failure to comply it is directory rather than mandatory).
HOUSING AND REDEVEL. AUTH. v. Adelmann 590 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1999
HOUSING AND REDEVEL. AUTH. v. Adelmann 590 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1999
A third case in which we articulated our position with respect to subject-matter jurisdiction in eminent domain matters is State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville 559 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville 559 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cf. State by Lord v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 74-76 , -73 (1961) (under eminent domain statute, court acquires jurisdiction over condemnation through presentation of petition to court and giving of statutory notice to interested persons); Independent Sch.
Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Pulkrabek v. Johnson 418 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 74 , (affirming denial of new trial despite “conservative” verdict).
Helgeson v. Gisselbeck 375 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Helgeson v. Gisselbeck 375 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
By allocating the separate amounts of compensation, subsequent litigation between the owner of the property and those having a, lesser interest may be obviated.” State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 75 , (emphasis supplied).
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
In State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 , we found that “[t]he court acquired jurisdiction by the presentation of the petition to the district court * * * and by statutory notice to persons inter *750 ested * * *.” Id.
STATE EX REL. IND. SCH., ETC. v. Dept. of Ed. 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
State ex rel. Independent School District No. 276 v. Department of Education 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
STATE EX REL. IND. SCH., ETC. v. Dept. of Ed. 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
First, the filing requirement can properly be termed "directory" under the rubric of State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70
State ex rel. Independent School District No. 276 v. Department of Education 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
First, the filing requirement can properly be termed “directory” under the rubric of State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70
Sullivan v. Credit River Township 217 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1974
Sullivan v. Credit River Township 217 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1974
State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70
Independent School District No. 13 v. Minneapolis Electric Steel Castings Co. 214 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1974
Independent School District No. 13 v. Minneapolis Electric Steel Castings Co. 214 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1974
Realty Co. 270 Minn. 297, 305 , quoting from the case of State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 74 , : “* * * [I]t is not for this court to say that it [the verdict] is so disproportionate as to be partial and unfair.
County of Hennepin v. Holt 207 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1973
County of Hennepin v. Holt 207 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1973
Paul, 65 Minn. 295 , Hockman v. Lindgren, 212 Minn. 321 , State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70
City of Mankato v. Guentzel 202 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1972
City of Mankato v. Guentzel 202 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1972
An award in gross is not prohibited, State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 , and defendant city obviously has complied with the directions of that final award.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. First Avenue Realty Company, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1965
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. First Avenue Realty Company, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1965
In State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 74 , 108 N. W. (2d) 769, 772 , this court, although conceding the verdict in that instance to be conservative, said: “* * * it is not for this court to say that it is so disproportionate as to be partial and unfair.
State Ex Rel. Todd v. Essling 128 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1964
State v. Hayden Miller Co. 116 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1962
State v. Hayden Miller Co. 116 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1962
897 ; State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 , 108 N. W. (2d) 769 ; State, by Lord, v. Pahl, 254 Minn. 349 , 95 N. W. (2d) 85 ; State, by Benson, v. Horman, 188 Minn. 252 , .
State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
3 State, by Lord, v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 , 108 N. W. (2d) 769 .