Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Guilder v. Town of Otsego, 20 Minn. 74.
- J.L. Shiely Co. v. County of Stearns 395 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1986
-
J.L. Shiely Co. v. County of Stearns
395 N.W.2d 357
Minn. 1986
858 (1892), and Guilder v. Otsego, 20 Minn. 74 (Gil 59, 63-64) (1874) (tax to fund construction of new bridge limited to townships particularly benefitted).
- Roske v. Ilykanyics 45 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1951
- Gustafson v. Koehler 224 N.W. 699 Minn. 1929
- Independent Harvester Co. v. Malzohn 179 N.W. 727 Minn. 1920
- Morton Brick & Tile Co. v. Sodergren 153 N.W. 527 Minn. 1915
- Evans v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 134 N.W. 294 Minn. 1912
- Gaffney v. Sederberg 131 N.W. 333 Minn. 1911
- Jensen v. Crosby 83 N.W. 43 Minn. 1900
- Bell v. Mendenhall 73 N.W. 1086 Minn. 1898
- State ex rel. Miller v. Bruce 52 N.W. 970 Minn. 1892
-
State ex rel. Miller v. Bruce
52 N.W. 970
Minn. 1892
The distinction between the case at bar and those in which the power of the legislature to determine upon the necessity of a public improvement, and to direct that it be made and paid for by particular mu nicipalities, — Guilder v. Otsego, 20 Minn. 74 , ( Gil.
- Maltby v. Tautges 52 N.W. 858 Minn. 1892
-
Maltby v. Tautges
52 N.W. 858
Minn. 1892
*254 We fail to see any distinction in principle between'the facts in this case and those in Guilder v. Town of Otsego, 20 Minn. 74 , ( Gil.
- Bruns v. Schreiber 45 N.W. 861 Minn. 1890
- Pray v. Rhodes 43 N.W. 838 Minn. 1889
- McMillan v. Ames 22 N.W. 612 Minn. 1885
- Keith v. Briggs 20 N.W. 91 Minn. 1884
- Guilder v. Dayton 22 Minn. 366 Minn. 1876
-
Guilder v. Dayton
22 Minn. 366
Minn. 1876
Berry, J. When this case was before this court at April term, 1873, (see Guilder v. Town of Otsego, 20 Minn. 74 ,) it was argued that the special act involved in its determination (Sp.