Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Hahn v. Young, 9 N.W. 737.

52 citing documents.

Wasmund v. Nunamaker 151 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1967
Wasmund v. Nunamaker 151 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1967
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; Home Ins.
Marine v. Whipple 104 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1960
State Ex Rel. Sheehan v. District Court 93 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. Sheehan v. District Court 93 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1958
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; Home Ins.
Naftalin v. King 90 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1958
Naftalin v. King 90 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1958
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 538 , , in holding that a state may irrevocably bind its taxing power to provide funds to meet a financial obligation so as not to be subject to impairment by a subsequent constitutional amendment, we said: “* * * of course a state can bind itself to pay money, and it must follow that it can bind its
Bellows v. Ericson 46 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1951
Bellows v. Ericson 46 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1951
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; 5 Dun-nell, Dig.
Norris Grain Co. v. Seafarers' International Union of North America 46 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1950
Norris Grain Co. v. Seafarers' International Union of North America 46 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1950
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 523 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Enersen 42 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1950
State Ex Rel. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Enersen 42 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1950
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 523 , ; State ex rel.
Juster v. Grossman 38 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1949
Juster v. Grossman 38 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1949
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; State ex rel.
Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Board & Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556 35 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1948
Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Board & Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556 35 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1948
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , 523 , 9 N.W.
State ex rel. Interstate Air-Parts, Inc. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 25 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1947
State Ex Rel. Interstate, Etc. v. M.-St. P. M. A. 25 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1947
State ex rel. Interstate Air-Parts, Inc. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 25 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1947
In the Simons case ( 32 Minn. 543 , ) we said: “* * * As said by this court in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 551 [ ], it is a principle not questioned that, except when *191 authorized by the constitution, as in respect to municipal corporations, the legislature cannot delegate legislative power.
State Ex Rel. Interstate, Etc. v. M.-St. P. M. A. 25 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1947
751 ) we said: "* * * As said by this court in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , 551 [ 9 N.W.
Moses v. Olson 255 N.W. 617 Minn. 1934
Distinguished Moses v. Olson 255 N.W. 617 Minn. 1934
Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , .
Williams v. Evans 165 N.W. 495 Minn. 1917
Williams v. Evans 165 N.W. 495 Minn. 1917
State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , .
State ex rel. Roberts v. Hense 160 N.W. 198 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Roberts v. Hense 160 N.W. 198 Minn. 1916
“Three things are essential to justify the writ (of prohibition) : First, that the court, officer, or person is about to exercise judicial or quasi judicial power; second, that the exercise of such power by such court, officer, or person is unauthorized by law; third, that it will result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy.” Gilfillan, C. J., in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 523 , .
State ex rel. Miller v. Carver 147 N.W. 660 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Miller v. Carver 147 N.W. 660 Minn. 1914
Harrington v. Town of Plainview, 27 Minn. 224, 232 , ; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; State v. Simons, 32 Minn. 540 , .
State v. Great Northern Railway Co. 119 N.W. 202 Minn. 1908
State v. Great Northern Railway Co. 119 N.W. 202 Minn. 1908
The *318 state bonds, to the amount of five million dollars, though the company utterly failed to construct the road and the state in fact received no consideration therefor, the state, after a prolonged contest, by the decision of this court in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , , was rightly compelled to pay.
State ex rel. Young v. Brill 111 N.W. 294 Minn. 1907
State ex rel. Young v. Brill 111 N.W. 294 Minn. 1907
If the judicial department can so far control the executive as to compel the performance of ministerial duties, then the two are no more distinct and independent, except in degree, than if the judiciary could compel the executive to perform all its duties, whatever their nature.” In State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , , the statute which provided for the adjustment of the Minnesota state railroad bonds was held void, because it attempted to delegate legislative power to the judiciary.
State v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 289 Minn. 1907
State v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 289 Minn. 1907
*476 In the case of State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , , it was held “that except where authorized by the constitution, as in respect to municipalities, the legislature cannot delegate legislative power ; cannot confer on any body or person the power to determine what shall be the law.
State ex rel. Patterson v. Bates 104 N.W. 709 Minn. 1905
State ex rel. Patterson v. Bates 104 N.W. 709 Minn. 1905
Co. v. Flint, 13 Minn. 228 (244) ; Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 74 (103) ; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 29 , ; State v. Simons, 32 Minn. 540 , ; Foreman v. Board of Co. Commrs.
State ex rel. Townsend v. Ward 72 N.W. 825 Minn. 1897
State ex rel. Townsend v. Ward 72 N.W. 825 Minn. 1897
As was said in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , , at page 523, 29 Minn., and page ‘738, 9 N. W., three things are essential to justify the writ, the last one mentioned being that the exercise of the threatened judicial or quasi judicial power will result in injury for which there is no other ¿adequate remedy.
Steenerson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 72 N.W. 713 Minn. 1897
Steenerson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 72 N.W. 713 Minn. 1897
Foreman v. Board, 64 Minn. 371 , ; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , ; Reagan v. Farmers, 154 U. S. 362 , 14 Sup.
State ex rel. Childs v. Copeland 69 N.W. 27 Minn. 1896
State ex rel. Childs v. Copeland 69 N.W. 27 Minn. 1896
See, also, State *318 v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , .
Foreman v. Board of County Commissioners 67 N.W. 207 Minn. 1896
Foreman v. Board of County Commissioners 67 N.W. 207 Minn. 1896
In the Matter of the Application of the Senate, 10 Minn. 56 (78); Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 74 (103); State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 , .
Anderson v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co. 60 N.W. 1095 Minn. 1894
State ex rel. Derusha v. McMartin 43 N.W. 572 Minn. 1889
State ex rel. Derusha v. McMartin 43 N.W. 572 Minn. 1889
It may also issue to a person or body of persons assuming to exercise the functions of a pretended court, when in fact no such court had ever been constitutionally established, for as is said in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 523 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.
State ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 37 N.W. 782 Minn. 1888
State ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 37 N.W. 782 Minn. 1888
As was said by this court in State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 551, 552 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by