Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Rice v. Smith, 28 N.W. 241.

26 citing documents.

Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis 283 N.W. 555 Minn. 1939
Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis 283 N.W. 555 Minn. 1939
Rice v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ; Egekvist Bakeries, Inc. v. Benson, 186 Minn. 520 , .
Sweet v. Richardson 250 N.W. 46 Minn. 1933
Distinguished Sweet v. Richardson 250 N.W. 46 Minn. 1933
Rice v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257, 258 , .
Egekvist Bakeries, Inc. v. Benson 243 N.W. 853 Minn. 1932
State Ex Rel. Benson v. Board of County Commissioners 243 N.W. 851 Minn. 1932
Egekvist Bakeries, Inc. v. Benson 243 N.W. 853 Minn. 1932
Rice v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , , an amendatory act, entitled as such and nothing more, must remain not only within the title, but also germane to the actual subject matter of the amended act.
State Ex Rel. Benson v. Board of County Commissioners 243 N.W. 851 Minn. 1932
Rice v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257, 261 , , that “an amendatory law is for the amendment, not of what might have been enacted under the title of the original statute, but of what was enacted; not of what the original law might have been, but of what it was.” With that rule the act here challenged complies.
Lyman v. Chase 226 N.W. 633 Minn. 1929
State ex rel. Olson v. Erickson 146 N.W. 364 Minn. 1914
State ex rel. Olson v. Erickson 146 N.W. 364 Minn. 1914
The following cases illustrate various applications of the rule requiring the amending statute to be germane: State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257, ; State v. Madson, 43 Minn. 438 , ; O’Brien v. St.
Kenaston v. Great Northern Railway Co. 60 N.W. 813 Minn. 1894
Kenaston v. Great Northern Railway Co. 60 N.W. 813 Minn. 1894
S. ch. 11, § 121), as amended by Laws 1889, ch. 198, which undoubtedly repealed and superseded Laws 1885, ch. 194, which latter act was passed prior to the decision of State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( ,) and when it was supposed that the law of 1877 had been repealed by Laws 1881, ch. 10.
State ex rel. Shissler v. Porter 55 N.W. 134 Minn. 1893
State ex rel. Shissler v. Porter 55 N.W. 134 Minn. 1893
328 ; State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( 28 N. W. Rep.
State ex rel. Wilson v. Bigelow 54 N.W. 95 Minn. 1893
State ex rel. Wilson v. Bigelow 54 N.W. 95 Minn. 1893
*312 The ease of State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( 28 N. W. Rep.
Reimer v. Newel 49 N.W. 865 Minn. 1891
State ex rel. Nash v. Madson 45 N.W. 856 Minn. 1890
State ex rel. Nash v. Madson 45 N.W. 856 Minn. 1890
The court below, when granting the alternative writ.of mandamus herein, seems to have conceded these several propositions, but to have acted upon the assumption that the subject-matter of the amendatory law was not treated or considered in the original, and hence, under the reasoning in State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( 28 N. W. Rep.
City of Winona v. School-District, No. 82 41 N.W. 539 Minn. 1889
City of Winona v. School-District, No. 82 41 N.W. 539 Minn. 1889
State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( 28 N. W. Rep.
Schramm v. Haupt 37 N.W. 798 Minn. 1888
Schramm v. Haupt 37 N.W. 798 Minn. 1888
The decision in State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( 28 N. W. Rep.
Hall v. Wheeler 35 N.W. 377 Minn. 1887
Hall v. Wheeler 35 N.W. 377 Minn. 1887
At this time, according to the decision subsequently made by this court in State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ( 28 N. W. Rep.