Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 63 N.W. 111.

27 citing documents.

Castor v. City of Minneapolis 429 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1988
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 429 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1988
Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 60 Minn. 539, 543 , 63 N.W.
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 415 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 415 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
at 7-8 (quoting Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 60 Minn. 539, 543 , 63 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Washington Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. State 329 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1983
State Ex Rel. Washington Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. State 329 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1983
the court quoted with approval the following passage from Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 60 Minn. 539, 543 , 63 N.W.
Haeussler v. Braun 314 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1981
Haeussler v. Braun 314 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1981
Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 60 Minn. 539, 543 , 63 N.W.
State v. Casey 115 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1962
State v. Casey 115 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1962
Co. 60 Minn. 539 , , 28 L. R. A. 310, and 3 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3 ed.) § 10.211(2).
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman 91 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1958
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman 91 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1958
Co. 60 Minn. 539, 543 , 63 N. W. Ill, 112, speaking through the clear-thinking and farseeing Mr. Justice Mitchell, said: “* * * fjence it hag become settled law that the easement is not limited to the particular methods of use in vogue when the easement was acquired, but includes all new and improved methods, the utility and general c
Hanson v. Hall 279 N.W. 227 Minn. 1938
City of St. Paul v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 245 N.W. 33 Minn. 1932
City of St. Paul v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 245 N.W. 33 Minn. 1932
Co. 60 Minn. 539 , , 28 L. R. A. 310, 51 A. S. R. 543; Grand Rapids G. H. & M. Ry.
Ober v. City of Minneapolis 229 N.W. 794 Minn. 1930
Ober v. City of Minneapolis 229 N.W. 794 Minn. 1930
Co. 60 Minn. 539 , , 28 L. R. A. 310, 51 A. S. R. 543, supports the first statement quoted but rejects the last, and so does Coburn v. New Tel.
St. Paul Realty & Assets Co. v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 142 N.W. 807 Minn. 1913
St. Paul Realty & Assets Co. v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 142 N.W. 807 Minn. 1913
Co. 60 Minn. 539 , , 28 L.R.A.
Town of Glencoe v. Reed 101 N.W. 956 Minn. 1904
Town of Glencoe v. Reed 101 N.W. 956 Minn. 1904
Co., 60 Minn. 539 , , and L. Realty Co. v. Johnson, 92 Minn. 363 , , are cases illustrative of the doctrine that the owner of the fee retains the right to use the land *520 for any lawful purpose compatible with the full enjoyment of the public easement, and that, the private right cannot be disregarded by the
L. Realty Co. v. Johnson 100 N.W. 94 Minn. 1904
L. Realty Co. v. Johnson 100 N.W. 94 Minn. 1904
Co., 60 Minn. 539 , , the court traces the history and development of highways for public uses, and, in holding that the placing of telephone poles along the highway did not impose an additional servitude, based its decision upon the principle that such use of the telephone was for the benefit of the public, providing a ne
Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. v. City of Minneapolis 83 N.W. 527 Minn. 1900
Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. v. City of Minneapolis 83 N.W. 527 Minn. 1900
Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 79 N.W. 315 Minn. 1899
Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 79 N.W. 315 Minn. 1899
Co., 60 Minn. 539 , 63 N. W. Ill.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by