Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Berg v. Baldwin, 18 N.W. 821.

25 citing documents.

Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The supreme court, however, has concluded that the phrase “other personal property” is “limited to ‘products of the soil’ or things ‘produced by and grown upon land.’ ” (quoting Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , 18 N.W.
Johnson v. Jensen 433 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Jensen 433 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , 18 N.W.
Mondt v. Sexter Realty Co. 293 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1980
Mondt v. Sexter Realty Co. 293 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1980
§ 548.05 (1978) allows treble damages to be assessed against “[w]hoever shall carry away, use or destroy any wood, timber, lumber, hay, grass, or other personal property of another person, without lawful authority [to do so] * * In Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , 18 N.W.
Kortsan v. Poor Richards, Inc. 188 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1971
Kortsan v. Poor Richards, Inc. 188 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1971
Moreover, this court has stated, with regard to an earlier similar statute, that such a statute is penal in nature and should receive a narrow construction “and not be extended to cases not within its spirit as well as letter.” Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541, 542 , .
State v. End 45 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1950
State v. End 45 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1950
See, State v. Walsh, 43 Minn. 444, 445 , ; State v. Shaw, 39 Minn. 153 , ; Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , ; First Nat.
Dahlen v. Polinsky 263 N.W. 602 Minn. 1935
Dahlen v. Polinsky 263 N.W. 602 Minn. 1935
See also State v. Finch, 37 Minn. 433, 434 , ; Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541, 542 , .
Kerst v. Nelson 213 N.W. 904 Minn. 1927
Kerst v. Nelson 213 N.W. 904 Minn. 1927
Appellants argue that since the act is of a penal nature (Gutterson v. Pearson, 152 Minn. 482 , , 24 A. L. R. 519) and since a penal statute is not to be extended to a case unless it is within the spirit as well as the letter of the statute (Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , ), the act should not be construed to include a transaction of the nature of that in which appellants propose to engage.
Gutterson v. Pearson 189 N.W. 458 Minn. 1922
Gutterson v. Pearson 189 N.W. 458 Minn. 1922
e legislature to effect that result is apparent, and not seriously doubtful; and if, applying the proper principles of construction to *488 ascertain the intention of the legislature expressed in the law, it remains fairly doubtful whether it was intended to embrace acts or conduct like that under consideration, such acts or conduct must be regarded as not within the statute.” In Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541, 542 , , which involved a statute imposing treble damages, it is said: “This statute is
State v. Kern 153 N.W. 311 Minn. 1915
State v. Kern 153 N.W. 311 Minn. 1915
Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , ; State v. Shaw, 39 Minn. 153 , ; Rhone v. Loomis, 74 Minn. 200 , ; State v. Chamberlain, 112 Minn. 52 , , 30 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Helppie v. Northwestern Drainage Co. 149 N.W. 461 Minn. 1914
Helppie v. Northwestern Drainage Co. 149 N.W. 461 Minn. 1914
Potulni v. Saunders, supra; Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , .
Grimestad v. Lofgren 117 N.W. 515 Minn. 1908
Grimestad v. Lofgren 117 N.W. 515 Minn. 1908
Rothschild v. Boelter, 18 Minn. 331 (361) ; Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , ; Boelter v. Klossner, 74 Minn. 272 , , 73 Am.
Winters v. City of Duluth 84 N.W. 788 Minn. 1901
State v. McCrum 36 N.W. 102 Minn. 1888
State v. McCrum 36 N.W. 102 Minn. 1888
So, in Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.