Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stewart v. Case, 54 N.W. 938.

32 citing documents.

Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
Public policy: The integrity and independence of the judiciary depends on the ability of court-appointed experts to make decisions “uninfluenced by any fear or apprehension of [personal] consequences.” Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 67 , 54 N.W.
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
at 300 (quoting Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 66 , 54 N.W.
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 314 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1981
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 314 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1981
See also Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , 54 N.W.
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
324 (1894); Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , 54 N.W.
DePalma v. Rosen 199 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1972
DePalma v. Rosen 199 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1972
Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , cited with approval in Roerig v. Hough *16 ton, 144 Minn. 231
Hoppe v. Klapperich 28 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1947
Hoppe v. Klapperich 28 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1947
“It is unquestionable, and has been from the earliest days of the common law, that a judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil action for his determinations and acts in his judicial capacity; however erroneous or by whatever motives prompted.” Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 66 , , 39 A. S. R. 575.
Robinette v. Price 8 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1943
Robinette v. Price 8 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1943
In Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 66 , , 39 A. S. R. 575, where an assessor was held not liable for acts done in performance of the duties of his office, the reason for the rule of nonliability in such cases was stated as follows: “The same reason which justifies the rule of exemption in the case of judges of courts applies to assessors
State Ex Rel. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Erickson 3 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1942
State Ex Rel. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Erickson 3 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1942
Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 66 , , 39 A. S. R. 575.
Linder v. Foster 295 N.W. 299 Minn. 1940
Linder v. Foster 295 N.W. 299 Minn. 1940
335 [20 L. ed. 646].” The rule was next applied in Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 66 , , 39 A. S. R. 575, where it was held that an assessor was entitled to its protection.
State v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 270 N.W. 609 Minn. 1936
State v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 270 N.W. 609 Minn. 1936
In placing a valuation upon the ore, the commission occupies a position much the same as tliat of an assessor, who exercises a quasi-judicial function in determining the value of property subject to taxation, Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , , 39 Am: St.
Wilbrecht v. Babcock 228 N.W. 916 Minn. 1930
Wilbrecht v. Babcock 228 N.W. 916 Minn. 1930
Stevens v. North States Motor, Inc. 161 Minn. 345 , , 40 A. L. R. 36; Roerig v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 231 , ; Bolland v. Gihlstorf, 134 Minn. 41 , ; Christensen v. Plummer, 130 Minn. 440 , ; Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , , 39 A. S. R. 575; Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347 , 23 Am.
State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson 207 N.W. 727 Minn. 1926
State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson 207 N.W. 727 Minn. 1926
In placing a valuation upon the ore, the commission occupies a position much the same as that of an assessor, who exercises a quasi judicial function in determining the value of property subject to taxation, Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , , 39 Am.
State v. Koochiching Realty Co. 177 N.W. 940 Minn. 1920
State v. Koochiching Realty Co. 177 N.W. 940 Minn. 1920
ough the proceedings under the statute are of that character, 'and are not changed by the fact that the assistance of the judiciary is invoked in their final completion, City of Duluth v. Dibblee, 62 Minn. 18 , , the fact that they retain that character does not render the statute unconstitutional, for there is a commingling of administrative and judicial functions, Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , , 39 Am.
Roerig v. Houghton 175 N.W. 542 Minn. 1919
Roerig v. Houghton 175 N.W. 542 Minn. 1919
Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , , 39 Am.
Melady v. South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange 171 N.W. 806 Minn. 1919
Melady v. South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange 171 N.W. 806 Minn. 1919
Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , , 39 Am.
Murray v. Mills 57 N.W. 324 Minn. 1894
Murray v. Mills 57 N.W. 324 Minn. 1894
The rule and the reasons therefor were recently stated by this court in Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62 , ( .)