Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Messenger, 6 N.W. 457.

34 citing documents.

Electric Short Line Terminal Co. v. City of Minneapolis 64 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1954
Electric Short Line Terminal Co. v. City of Minneapolis 64 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1954
We therefore expressly overrule State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , , and State v. Bruggerman, 31 Minn. 493 , , and similar cases insofar as they establish the *10 doctrine that adequate notice in an eminent domain proceeding is supplied by the theory that every citizen is presumed to know the law.
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Bentley 12 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1943
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Bentley 12 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1943
521 ; State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , 6 N.W.
In Re Improvement of Third Street, St. Paul 225 N.W. 86 Minn. 1929
In Re Improvement of Third Street, St. Paul 225 N.W. 86 Minn. 1929
Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. 123 ; State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ; City of St.
Kozisek v. Brigham 210 N.W. 622 Minn. 1926
Kozisek v. Brigham 210 N.W. 622 Minn. 1926
The time cannot be pronounced unreasonable unless “so short as under the circumstances to amount to a practical denial of the right itself.” State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , .
State Ex Rel. McFarland v. Erskine 206 N.W. 447 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. McFarland v. Erskine 206 N.W. 447 Minn. 1925
State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , .
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 205 N.W. 640 Minn. 1925
Establishment of a Restricted Residence District v. Scott 186 N.W. 292 Minn. 1922
Establishment of a Restricted Residence District v. Scott 186 N.W. 292 Minn. 1922
of Ramsey County, 16 Minn. 333 (375); State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ; Everington v. Board of Park Commissioners of City of Minneapolis, 119 Minn. 334 , .
State ex rel. National Bond & Security Co. v. Krahmer 117 N.W. 780 Minn. 1908
State ex rel. National Bond & Security Co. v. Krahmer 117 N.W. 780 Minn. 1908
Ann. p. 868, and cases there cited; Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn. 138 (153); State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ; Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co., 132 Fed.
Johnson v. Town of Clontarf 108 N.W. 521 Minn. 1906
Johnson v. Town of Clontarf 108 N.W. 521 Minn. 1906
State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119, 121 , .
Brown v. Pinkerton 103 N.W. 897 Minn. 1905
Brown v. Pinkerton 103 N.W. 897 Minn. 1905
Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn. 138 (153); State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ; Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 167 , .
State ex rel. Douglas v. Westfall 89 N.W. 175 Minn. 1902
State ex rel. Douglas v. Westfall 89 N.W. 175 Minn. 1902
State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ; Russell v. H. C. Akeley L. Co., 45 Minn. 376 , ; London & N. W. M. Co. v. Gibson, 77 Minn. 394 , ; Henningsen v. City of Stillwater, 81 Minn. 215 , .
Banse v. Town of Clark 71 N.W. 819 Minn. 1897
Banse v. Town of Clark 71 N.W. 819 Minn. 1897
State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ; State v. Bruggerman, 31 Minn. 493 , ; Miller v. Town, 42 Minn. 391 , ; Elliott, Roads & S. 206.
Hill v. Townley 47 N.W. 653 Minn. 1891
In re Lincoln Park 46 N.W. 355 Minn. 1890
In re Lincoln Park 46 N.W. 355 Minn. 1890
In State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ( 6 N. W. Rep.
Miller v. Town of Corinna 44 N.W. 127 Minn. 1890
Miller v. Town of Corinna 44 N.W. 127 Minn. 1890
State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 , ( 6 N. W. Rep.
City of St. Paul v. Nickl 44 N.W. 59 Minn. 1890
City of St. Paul v. Nickl 44 N.W. 59 Minn. 1890
R. Co., 21 Minn. 241, 293 ; Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. 123 ; State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119, 123 , ( 6 N. W. Rep.
Commissioners of State Park v. Henry 36 N.W. 874 Minn. 1888
Commissioners of State Park v. Henry 36 N.W. 874 Minn. 1888
374 ; State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119, 123 , ( 6 N. W. Rep.
State v. Bruggerman 18 N.W. 454 Minn. 1884
State v. Bruggerman 18 N.W. 454 Minn. 1884
Laws 1878, c. 191,) which was considered in the case of State v. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119 .