Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Minnetonka Village, 59 N.W. 972.

40 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Town of White Bear v. City of White Bear Lake 95 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1959
State Ex Rel. Town of White Bear v. City of White Bear Lake 95 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1959
v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755; State ex rel.
Grudnosky v. Bislow 88 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1958
Grudnosky v. Bislow 88 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1958
Childs v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526, 531 , , 25 L.R.A.
State Ex Rel. Township of Copley v. Village of Webb 83 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1957
State Ex Rel. Township of Copley v. Village of Webb 83 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1957
v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526, 533 , , 25 L. R. A. 755, 759, this court, in interpreting an earlier version of § 412.011, subd.
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound 48 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound 48 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1951
v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755.
State Ex Rel. Northern Pump Co. v. Village of Fridley 47 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Northern Pump Co. v. Village of Fridley 47 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1951
v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755, was held to be constitutional in St.
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. So-Called Village of St. Anthony 26 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1947
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. So-Called Village of St. Anthony 26 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1947
Childs v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526, 533 , , 25 L. R. A. 755, where Mr. Justice Mitchell, speaking for the court, said: “A ‘village’ means an assemblage of houses, less than a town or city, but nevertheless urban or semiurban in its character; and the object of the law was to give these aggregations of people in a comparatively small t
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Village of Leetonia 298 N.W. 717 Minn. 1941
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Village of Leetonia 298 N.W. 717 Minn. 1941
[Childs] v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526, 533 , , 25 L. R. A. 755; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. v. So-Called "Village of Minnewashta" 206 N.W. 455 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. v. So-Called "Village of Minnewashta" 206 N.W. 455 Minn. 1925
The respondents have deliberately and frankly refrained from any final or binding choice of any one location having the characteristics of “a compact center or nucleus of population on platted lands” which it was held in State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755, is “a fundamental condition to a village organization.” But if we pass that notable defect in respondent’s case, we.
Booth v. City of Minneapolis 203 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
Booth v. City of Minneapolis 203 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755.
In re Norrish 193 N.W. 947 Minn. 1923
In re Norrish 193 N.W. 947 Minn. 1923
State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 765; State v. Village of Holloway, 90 Minn. 271 , ; State v. Village of Kinney, 146 Minn. 311 , ; State v. Village of Buhl, 150 Minn. 203 , ; State v. City of Nashwauk, 151 Minn. 534 , , .
State ex rel. Hilton v. City of Nashwauk 186 N.W. 694 Minn. 1922
State ex rel. Hilton v. City of Nashwauk 186 N.W. 694 Minn. 1922
We think this contention is disposed of by State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755.
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover 130 N.W. 74 Minn. 1911
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover 130 N.W. 74 Minn. 1911
The case differs radically from the following cases: State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , .
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice 127 N.W. 1118 Minn. 1910
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice 127 N.W. 1118 Minn. 1910
State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L.R.A.
State ex rel. Young v. Village of Gilbert 120 N.W. 528 Minn. 1909
State ex rel. Young v. Village of Gilbert 120 N.W. 528 Minn. 1909
The territory involved in this proceeding is not of so great extent as that involved in State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755, and State v. Village of Fridley Park, 61 Minn. 146 , .
State ex rel. Young v. Village of Harris 113 N.W. 887 Minn. 1907
State ex rel. Young v. Village of Harris 113 N.W. 887 Minn. 1907
State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , 25 L. R. A. 755; State v. Village of Fridley Park, 61 Minn. 146 , ; State v. Village of Holloway, 90 Minn. 271 , .
State ex rel. Douglas v. Village of Holloway 96 N.W. 40 Minn. 1903
State ex rel. Douglas v. Village of Holloway 96 N.W. 40 Minn. 1903
The case comes clearly within the principles laid down in State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , and State v. Village of Fridley Park, 61 Minn. 146 , , and the decisions there made are controlling.
State ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commissioners v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 79 N.W. 510 Minn. 1899
State ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commissioners v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 79 N.W. 510 Minn. 1899
S. 1894, § 1200; State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , .
St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. Village of Sandstone 75 N.W. 1050 Minn. 1898
St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. Village of Sandstone 75 N.W. 1050 Minn. 1898
This statute, as construed in the case of State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , , is constitutional.
State ex rel. Childs v. Board of County Commissioners 68 N.W. 767 Minn. 1896
State ex rel. Childs v. Board of County Commissioners 68 N.W. 767 Minn. 1896
State v. Tracy, 48 Minn. 497 , ; State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526 , ; State v. Village of Fridley Park, 61 Minn. 146 , .
State ex rel. Childs v. Village of Fridley Park 63 N.W. 613 Minn. 1895
State ex rel. Childs v. Village of Fridley Park 63 N.W. 613 Minn. 1895
COLLINS, J. This proceeding is to be determined by an application of the principles laid down in State v. Minnetonka, 57 Minn. 526 , , to the undisputed facts.