Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co., 60 N.W. 23.

26 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Estate of: Rosalie S. Allard, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Denzer v. Prendergast, 267 Minn. 212, (holding that an owner of a remainder in fee subject to a life estate is entitled to an exemption when he is in possession of the house under an oral agreement); In re Emerson, 58 Minn. 450, (holding that a person with a leasehold interest is entitled to the exemption when in possession during his tenancy); Kaser v. Haas, 27 Minn. 406, 7 N.W.
Twin City Pipe Trades Service Ass'n v. Peak Mechanical, Inc. 689 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Twin City Pipe Trades Service Ass'n v. Peak Mechanical, Inc. 689 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co., 58 Minn. 455, 455 , 60 N.W.
Cargill, Inc. v. Hedge 358 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re Emerson, 58 Minn. 450
Lampert Yards, Inc. v. Thompson-Wetterling Construction & Realty, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1974
Lampert Yards, Inc. v. Thompson-Wetterling Construction & Realty, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1974
Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co. 58 Minn. 455 , see, also, W. T. Bailey Lbr.
Denzer v. Prendergast 126 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1964
The holding of In re Emerson’s Homestead, 58 Minn. 450 , , is that a tenant for years is entitled to the exemption when in possession during his tenancy.
W. T. Bailey Lumber Co. v. Eveleth Elks Building Corp. 208 N.W. 198 Minn. 1926
W. T. Bailey Lumber Co. v. Eveleth Elks Building Corp. 208 N.W. 198 Minn. 1926
185 , 20 S. W. 16 , a holding directly at variance with Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co. 58 Minn. 455 , , 49 Am.
Olson v. Oneida Mines Co. 189 N.W. 455 Minn. 1922
Olson v. Oneida Mines Co. 189 N.W. 455 Minn. 1922
Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co. 58 Minn. 455 , , 49 Am.
Rogers v. Benz 161 N.W. 395 Minn. 1917
Gowan v. Fountain, 50 Minn. 264 , ; In re Emerson’s Homestead, 58 Minn. 450 , .
Grace v. Grace 104 N.W. 969 Minn. 1905
Ehrck v. Ehrck, 106 Iowa, 614 , ; In re Emerson’s Homestead, 58 Minn. 450, 453 , .
Tweto v. Horton 97 N.W. 128 Minn. 1903
Tweto v. Horton 97 N.W. 128 Minn. 1903
We think it did, under the authority of Wilson v. Eigenbrodt, 30 Minn. 4 , ; Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co., 58 Minn. 455 , and First Nat.
Keith v. Albrecht 94 N.W. 677 Minn. 1903
Wilder v. Haughey, 21 Minn. 101 ; Kaser v. Haas, 27 Minn. 406 , ; In re Emerson’s Homestead, 58 Minn. 450 , .
First National Bank v. Pope 89 N.W. 318 Minn. 1902
First National Bank v. Pope 89 N.W. 318 Minn. 1902
Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co., 58 Minn. 455 , .
Woodland Co. v. Mendenhall 85 N.W. 164 Minn. 1901
Woodland Co. v. Mendenhall 85 N.W. 164 Minn. 1901
Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co., 58 Minn. 455, 458 , .
Spalding Hotel Co. v. Emerson 72 N.W. 119 Minn. 1897
In re Emerson, 58 Minn. 450 , .
Langevin v. Bloom 71 N.W. 697 Minn. 1897
Langevin v. Bloom 71 N.W. 697 Minn. 1897
This precise question has never been passed upon by this court, *24 although in Kinney v. Duluth, 58 Minn. 455 , , we held that the assignment of a demand, which may be enforced under the mechanic’s lien law, operates as an assignment of the right to a lien.
Colvin v. Weimer 65 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1896
Colvin v. Weimer 65 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1896
The same would be true of labor performed in “stripping” a mine preparatory to getting out the ore, which was the case in Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co., 58 Minn. 455 , .
In re Emerson's Homestead 60 N.W. 23 Minn. 1894