Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kipp v. Johnson, 17 N.W. 957.
- In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
- Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1
427 N.W.2d 707
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
1628 (1945) (quoting Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360, 363 , 17 N.W.
- Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
-
Wichelman v. Messner
83 N.W.2d 800
Minn. 1957
v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157; Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ; 11 Dunnell, Dig.
- Donaldson v. Chase Securities Corp. 13 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1943
-
Donaldson v. Chase Securities Corp.
13 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 1943
In Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360, 363 , , this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, said, “No man has a vested right to a mere remedy, or in an exemption from it.” In that case the distinction subsequently recognized in Campbell v. Holt was stated with approval.
- State Ex Rel. Kane v. Stassen 294 N.W. 647 Minn. 1940
-
State Ex Rel. Kane v. Stassen
294 N.W. 647
Minn. 1940
Since remedies are not vested rights, see Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ; 25 R. C. L. p. 939, § 191, revocation is not cause for complaint.
- Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 213 N.W. 557 Minn. 1927
-
Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
213 N.W. 557
Minn. 1927
In Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , , the distinction between a bar of a remedy in a personal action, and a bar the effect of which is to vest the one successfully asserting it with title to real or personal property, is discussed.
- Lindquist v. Agre 191 N.W. 1010 Minn. 1923
-
Lindquist v. Agre
191 N.W. 1010
Minn. 1923
In Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 300 , , cited by plaintiffs, a distinction is drawn and reference made to Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 358 (480), and from Cooley, Const. Lim.
- Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. National Surety Co. 158 N.W. 802 Minn. 1916
-
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. National Surety Co.
158 N.W. 802
Minn. 1916
Lambert v. Slingerland, 25 Minn. 457 ; Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ; Lunt v. Stevens, 24 Me. 534 ; Stewart v. Tennant, 52 W. Va.
- 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
(5th Ed.) 361; Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ; Whitney v. Wegler, 54 Minn. 235 , .
- Willard v. Hodapp 107 N.W. 954 Minn. 1906
-
Willard v. Hodapp
107 N.W. 954
Minn. 1906
Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 358 (480); Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360, 362 , ; Feller v. Clark, 36 Minn. 338, 340 , ; London & N. W. Am.
- O'Connor v. Finnegan 62 N.W. 618 Minn. 1895
-
O'Connor v. Finnegan
62 N.W. 618
Minn. 1895
Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , .
- Pine County v. Lambert 58 N.W. 990 Minn. 1894
-
Pine County v. Lambert
58 N.W. 990
Minn. 1894
Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( .)
- Whitney v. Wegler 55 N.W. 927 Minn. 1893
-
Whitney v. Wegler
55 N.W. 927
Minn. 1893
419 ;) and Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( 17 N. W. Rep.
- Flynn v. Lemieux 49 N.W. 238 Minn. 1891
-
Flynn v. Lemieux
49 N.W. 238
Minn. 1891
365; Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( 17 N. W. Rep.
- Bonham v. Weymouth 38 N.W. 805 Minn. 1888
-
Bonham v. Weymouth
38 N.W. 805
Minn. 1888
It is there said: “To make a properly framed deed prima facie evidence under this (138) section, it is only necessary to show that the sale was directed by the state auditor, as the deed will upon its face show whether the direction was carried out.” This construction was assumed in Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( 17 N. W. Rep.
- Feller v. Clark 31 N.W. 175 Minn. 1887
- Sanborn v. Petter 29 N.W. 64 Minn. 1886
-
Sanborn v. Petter
29 N.W. 64
Minn. 1886
Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 358 , (480;) and see Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( 17 N. W. Rep.
- Morrison v. Rice 29 N.W. 168 Minn. 1886
-
Morrison v. Rice
29 N.W. 168
Minn. 1886
423 ; Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn. 18 , (34;) Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( 17 N. W. Rep.
- Gates v. Shugrue 29 N.W. 57 Minn. 1886
-
Gates v. Shugrue
29 N.W. 57
Minn. 1886
This, her vested right of property, could not be taken away or impaired by “legislative enactment.” Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360 , ( 17 N. W. Rep.