Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312.

88 citing documents.

Defenders of Wildlife v. Ventura 632 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Defenders of Wildlife v. Ventura 632 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 322 (1875).
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
We defined logrolling as the "combination of different measures, dissimilar in character, * * * united together * * * compelling the requisite support to secure their passage.” State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 322 (1875) (subject provision’s purpose is to "secure to every distinct measure of legislation a separate consideration and decision, dependent solely upon its individual merits, by prohibiting the fraudulent insertion therein of matters wholly foreign”).
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Carlson 590 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Carlson 590 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 322 (1875).
State Ex Rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski 391 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State Ex Rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski 391 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
In State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 (1875), we said: The well-known object of this section of the constitution, which declares that “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title,” was to secure to every distinct measure of legislation a separate consideration and decision, dependent solely upon its individual merits
Wass v. Anderson 252 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1977
Wass v. Anderson 252 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1977
The reason behind the requirement that each law embrace but a single subject is well-described in State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 322 (1875): “* * * The well-known object of this section of the constitution, which declares that ‘no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title,’ was to secure to every distinct measure of legislation a separate consideration and decision, dependent solely upon its individual meri
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State Ex Rel. Grozbach v. Common School District No. 65 54 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1952
State Ex Rel. Grozbach v. Common School District No. 65 54 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1952
4 See, State v. Helmer, 169 Minn. 221, 223-224 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Meyer 37 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1949
State v. Meyer 37 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1949
See, also, State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Palmer 3 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1942
State v. Palmer 3 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1942
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
Lyman v. Chase 226 N.W. 633 Minn. 1929
State v. Helmer 211 N.W. 3 Minn. 1926
State v. Helmer 211 N.W. 3 Minn. 1926
In the frequently cited case of State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. McGraw 203 N.W. 771 Minn. 1925
State v. McGraw 203 N.W. 771 Minn. 1925
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Evans 191 N.W. 425 Minn. 1922
State v. Evans 191 N.W. 425 Minn. 1922
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Women's & Children's Hospital Ass'n 184 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1921
State v. Women's & Children's Hospital Ass'n 184 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1921
634; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
Seamer v. Great Northern Railway Co. 172 N.W. 765 Minn. 1919
Seamer v. Great Northern Railway Co. 172 N.W. 765 Minn. 1919
634; State v. Board of Control, 85 Minn. 165 , , and cases cited; State v. Madson, 43 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Droppo 147 N.W. 829 Minn. 1914
State v. Droppo 147 N.W. 829 Minn. 1914
State v. Standard Oil Co. 111 Minn. 85 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State ex rel. Olson v. Erickson 146 N.W. 364 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Olson v. Erickson 146 N.W. 364 Minn. 1914
of Norman County, 80 Minn. 58 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. People's Ice Co. 144 N.W. 962 Minn. 1914
State v. People's Ice Co. 144 N.W. 962 Minn. 1914
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Sharp 141 N.W. 526 Minn. 1913
State v. Sharp 141 N.W. 526 Minn. 1913
It matters not that the act embraces technically more than one subject, one of which only is expressed in the title * * * so that they are not foreign and extraneous to each other, but 'blend’ together in the common purpose * * * sought to be accomplished by the law.” Cornell, J., in State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 324 , 21 Am.
Jackson v. Board of Education 127 N.W. 569 Minn. 1910
Jackson v. Board of Education 127 N.W. 569 Minn. 1910
It is sufficient if the title of the act is broad enough to include such corporation, and not of a character which would mislead or furnish a cover for secret legislation (State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State ex rel. Young v. Standard Oil Co. 126 N.W. 527 Minn. 1910
State ex rel. Young v. Standard Oil Co. 126 N.W. 527 Minn. 1910
Megins v. City of Duluth, 97 Minn. 23 , ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Porter, 53 Minn. 279 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State ex rel. Young v. Minnesota Club 119 N.W. 494 Minn. 1909
Leavitt v. City of Morris 117 N.W. 393 Minn. 1908
Leavitt v. City of Morris 117 N.W. 393 Minn. 1908
City of Rochester v. Upman, 19 Minn. 78 (108); State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
State v. Tower Lumber Co. 110 N.W. 254 Minn. 1907
State v. Tower Lumber Co. 110 N.W. 254 Minn. 1907
Paul Permanent Loan Co., 84 Minn. 245 , ; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 131 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
Elwell v. Comstock 109 N.W. 698 Minn. 1906
Elwell v. Comstock 109 N.W. 698 Minn. 1906
Supervisors of Ramsey County v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 281 (330); State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.
City of Duluth v. Abrahamson 104 N.W. 682 Minn. 1905
City of Duluth v. Abrahamson 104 N.W. 682 Minn. 1905
State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 .