Cited by

& 1916 Supp. § 1683; State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , .

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , .

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , ; State v. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483 , 1134 , 46 L.R.A.

In State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , the statement made on the authority of the Borough of Henderson case that, prior to the act of 1893, the county of Hennepin could not undertake the building of a courthouse jointly with the city of Minneapolis was purely obiter, as was the statement in State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509

See State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 548 , .

In State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , the question of classification received very full consideration, and it was held that a law special in form, might, nevertheless, be general in fact.

that the classification shall be upon some apparent natural reason — some reason suggested by necessity, by such a difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects placed in different classes as suggests the necessity or propriety of different legislation with respect to them.” State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ; Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 479 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 57 Minn. 47 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Beck v. City of St.

While we are required to take judicial notice of all facts bearing upon the constitutionality of a statute (State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , and State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , ), yet we do not in fact know; and have no means of knowing, whether there were similar orders outstanding which had never been presented for *440 pajnment.

of Ramsey Co., 81 Minn. 359 , , and also in State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , .

Ramsey Co., 81 Minn. 359 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , .

State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , .

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , .

In State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 550 , , it was said that class legislation is “Legislation which selects particular individuals from a class, and imposes upon them special burdens, from which others of the same class are exempt, and thus denies them the equal protection of the laws.” But the class here created consists of those who eng

Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 479 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 548 , ; Flynn v. Little Falls E. & W. Co., 74 Minn. 180 , ; State v. City of Thief River Falls, 76 Minn. 15 , ; Iowa v. Soper, 39 Iowa, 112 ; 32 Am.

r first meeting after the passage of this act nominate and appoint a county assessor, who shall fill such office * * * until the next general election to be held in the month of November, 1900, and until his successor is elected and qualified.” We have been over the whole subject of classification so often, particularly in Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , , and *534 State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , that it is unnecessary now to do more than restate two fundamental rules, viz.: First, that the

State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 548 ; ; Flynn v. Little Falls E. & W. Co., 74 Minn. 180 , ; Iowa v. Soper, 39 Iowa, 112 .

State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 ; State v. Spaude, supra; State v. Sheriff of Ramsey Co., 48 Minn. 236 ; State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74 ; Le Vallee v. St.

The rule is stated in State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 554 , , thus: Courts will “take judicial notice of all facts bearing on the constitutionality of the law.” The validity of this law depends upon whether it received a majority of all the votes cast at the election, not on the subsequent act or omission of the state canvassing board, or of any other offic

State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. District Court St.

It was held in State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , that, if the classification is otherwise proper and complete the act is not special legislation merely because there is but one member in the class.

Counsel for appellants, in support of their contention, quote an expression found in State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , in the opinion written after reargument: “Examples of acts obnoxious to this rule are laws classifying cities on the basis of present population.” The word “present,” in that sentence, was used advisedly; for we had in mind such legislative enactments as only affected municipalities having the designa

v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , (58 N W. 150,) to fully consider this constitutional provision, that no extended discussion of its construction or application is required at this time.