Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107.

34 citing documents.

Minn. 2021
at 25; Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107, 114 (Minn. 1865).
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Paul, 211 Minn. 351, 353 , (quoting Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107, 121 , 10 Gil.
Diemer v. Carlson 550 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 1996
Medill v. State 477 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1991
Medill v. State 477 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1991
See Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 ( Gil.
McPherson v. University Motors, Inc. 193 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1972
O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
Roinestad v. McCarthy 82 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1957
Cysewski v. Steingraber 24 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1946
First Trust & Savings Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 194 N.W. 376 Minn. 1923
Rux v. Adam 172 N.W. 912 Minn. 1919
Lockey v. Lockey 128 N.W. 833 Minn. 1910
Delisha v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Co. 126 N.W. 276 Minn. 1910
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Pierce 115 N.W. 649 Minn. 1908
Midway Co. v. Eaton 79 Minn. 442 Minn. 1900
National Bank of Republic of New York v. Banholzer 71 N.W. 919 Minn. 1897
Quehl v. Peterson 49 N.W. 390 Minn. 1891
Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co. 43 N.W. 52 Minn. 1889
Talbot v. Barager 34 N.W. 23 Minn. 1887
Washburn v. Van Steenwyk 20 N.W. 324 Minn. 1884
Umland v. Holcombe 3 N.W. 341 Minn. 1879
State ex rel. Central Railroad v. Supervisors of Town of Lime 23 Minn. 521 Minn. 1877
State ex rel. Central Railroad v. Supervisors of Town of Lime 23 Minn. 521 Minn. 1877
to the second point, as it is not clearly and affirmatively shown whether the notices of election -wore posted in three or five places, it must be presumed that the}’■were properly posted in accordance with the general presumption in favor of the right performance of official duty, though it be conceded that the alleged omission is not one covered by the decision in the case of Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 .
Dayton v. City of St. Paul 22 Minn. 400 Minn. 1876
Dayton v. City of St. Paul 22 Minn. 400 Minn. 1876
This, as construed by this court in Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 , requires a majority of the electors voting at the general election at which the law is submitted.
Everett v. Smith 22 Minn. 53 Minn. 1875
Everett v. Smith 22 Minn. 53 Minn. 1875
” In Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 , the same question was presented, and deliberately considered by this court, by which it was distinctly determined that the words, “a. majority of such electors,” as used in the provision of the constitution, mean a majority of the electors voting at the election.
Edson v. Child 18 Minn. 351 Minn. 1872
Edson v. Child 18 Minn. 351 Minn. 1872
St., viz.: “ provided that there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter.” This proviso has been inserted in the election law since the decision *352 in Taylor vs. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 , and it is claimed that the' effect of the insertion is to change the law as it was construed in Taylor vs. Taylor, and what is particularly important in the case at bar, to render the use of register poll lists essential to the validity of an election, and that, therefore, the court
Edson v. Child 18 Minn. 64 Minn. 1871
Edson v. Child 18 Minn. 64 Minn. 1871
Berry, J. In bolding that tbe failure to make or use “ registry poll lists ” did not furnish sufficient ground for rejecting tbe votes cast in tbe towns in which sucb failure occurred, tbe court below very properly followed tbe rule of Taylor vs. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 .
Bayard v. Klinge 16 Minn. 249 Minn. 1871
Bayard v. Klinge 16 Minn. 249 Minn. 1871
The respondent insists that they are; the appellant that they are not thus interchangeable; and both parties cite and rely on the case of Taylor vs. Taylor et al., 10 Minn. 107 .