Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1.

30 citing documents.

Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(alterations in original) (quoting Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 6 (1878)).
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Curryer v. Merrill , 25 Minn. 1 , 6 (1878).
Cruz-Guzman v. State 892 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cruz-Guzman v. State 892 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
325, 325 (1913) (nonresident student tuition); Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 5-6 (1878) (textbooks); Bd.
Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1993
Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1993
Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 6-7 (1878).
Leighton v. Abell 31 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1948
State Ex Rel. Klimek v. School District No. 70 283 N.W. 397 Minn. 1939
State Ex Rel. Klimek v. School District No. 70 283 N.W. 397 Minn. 1939
Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1 , 33 Am.
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 174 Minn. 305 Minn. 1928
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 219 N.W. 172 Minn. 1928
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 174 Minn. 305 Minn. 1928
Louis, 117 Minn. 42 , ; Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co. 65 Minn. 196 , , 33 A. L. R. 437, 60 A. S. R. 450; Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1 , 33 Am.
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 219 N.W. 172 Minn. 1928
450 ; Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1 , 33 Am.
Brown v. Smallwood 153 N.W. 953 Minn. 1915
State ex rel. Kohlman v. Wagener 153 N.W. 749 Minn. 1915
State ex rel. Kohlman v. Wagener 153 N.W. 749 Minn. 1915
213, 270 , 6 L. ed. 606; Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 4 , 33 Am.
Smith ex rel. Smith v. City of St. Paul 150 N.W. 389 Minn. 1914
Smith ex rel. Smith v. City of St. Paul 150 N.W. 389 Minn. 1914
They are recognized as legal in all the cases about to be cited, and also in State v. Henderson, 97 Minn. 369 , , and in Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1 , 33 Am.
Farrell v. Hicken 147 N.W. 815 Minn. 1914
Farrell v. Hicken 147 N.W. 815 Minn. 1914
Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 4 , 33 Am.
State ex rel. Arpin v. George 142 N.W. 945 Minn. 1913
State ex rel. Arpin v. George 142 N.W. 945 Minn. 1913
But it is elementary that, to justify a court in holding a statute *65 invalid because repugnant to a constitutional provision, no reasonable doubt should remain in the judicial mind that such repugnancy actually exists, Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1 , 33 Am.
Associated Schools of Independent District No. 63 v. School District No. 83 142 N.W. 325 Minn. 1913
Associated Schools of Independent District No. 63 v. School District No. 83 142 N.W. 325 Minn. 1913
Nor does it violate the constitutional requirement of a “uniform system of public schools.” In Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 6 , 33 Am.
State ex rel. Day v. Hanson 100 N.W. 1124 Minn. 1904
State ex rel. Utick v. Board of County Commissioners 92 N.W. 216 Minn. 1902
State ex rel. Utick v. Board of County Commissioners 92 N.W. 216 Minn. 1902
As said, in substance, in Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1 , as a sequence it logically follows that every statute duly passed by the legislature is presumably valid, and this presumption is conclusive unless it affirmatively appears to be in conflict with some provision of the constitution; and, in order to justify a court in pronouncing it invalid, its repugnancy with the c
State ex rel. Olsen v. Board of Control of State Institutions 88 N.W. 533 Minn. 1902
State ex rel. Olsen v. Board of Control of State Institutions 88 N.W. 533 Minn. 1902
nclusive unless it affirmatively appears to be in conflict with some provision, of the federal or state constitution; and, in order to justify a court in pronouncing it invalid because of its violation of some clause of the state constitution, its repugnancy therewith must be so ‘clear, plain, and palpable’ as to leave no reasonable doubt or hesitation upon the judicial mind.” Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 4 .