Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Oblinger v. Spaude, 34 N.W. 164.

29 citing documents.

Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2020
Oblinger v. Spaude , (stating that a law may be general even though it does “not operate alike upon all the inhabitants of the state” ).
Williams v. Rolfe 114 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1962
Williams v. Rolfe 114 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1962
v. Spaude [ 37 Minn. 322 , ], it must be based upon some natural reason, — some reason suggested by necessity, by some difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects placed in the different classes, suggesting the necessity of *292 different legislation with respect to them.
Hassler v. Engberg 48 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1951
Hassler v. Engberg 48 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1951
Oblinger v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322, 323 , .
Driscoll v. Board of County Commissioners 201 N.W. 945 Minn. 1925
Driscoll v. Board of County Commissioners 201 N.W. 945 Minn. 1925
Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ; State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 48 Minn. 236 , , 31 Am.
Lowry v. Scott 124 N.W. 635 Minn. 1910
Lowry v. Scott 124 N.W. 635 Minn. 1910
State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , .
Calderwood v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. 121 N.W. 221 Minn. 1909
Calderwood v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. 121 N.W. 221 Minn. 1909
Defendant urges that a curative act should receive a liberal construction, and cites State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322, 324 , , Farnsworth L. & R. Co. v. Commonwealth Title Ins.
State ex rel. Board of Education v. Brown 106 N.W. 477 Minn. 1906
State ex rel. Board of Education v. Brown 106 N.W. 477 Minn. 1906
State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ; Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 479 , ; Flynn v. Dittle Falls E. & W. Co., 74 Minn. 180 , , ; State v. City of Thief River Falls, 76 Minn. 15 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State v. Ames, 87 Minn. 23 , ; Kaiser v
Bennett v. Nichols 80 P. 392 Ariz. 1905
State ex rel. Corriston v. Rogers 100 N.W. 659 Minn. 1904
State ex rel. Corriston v. Rogers 100 N.W. 659 Minn. 1904
stated as follows: “The true practical limitation of the legislative power to classify is that the classification shall be upon some apparent natural reason — some reason suggested by necessity, by such a difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects placed in different classes as suggests the necessity or propriety of different legislation with respect to them.” State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ; Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 479 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City o
Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co. 77 N.W. 38 Minn. 1898
State ex rel. Board of Courthouse & City Hall Com'rs v. Cooley 58 N.W. 150 Minn. 1893
State ex rel. Board of Courthouse & City Hall Com'rs v. Cooley 58 N.W. 150 Minn. 1893
v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ( ,) this court, in both cases speaking through Chief Justice Gilfillan, said that “it must be conceded that when a general law, uniform in its operation, is required, the law is none the less general and uniform because it divides the subjects of its operation into classes, and applies different rules
State ex rel. McCue v. Sheriff of Ramsey County 51 N.W. 112 Minn. 1892
State ex rel. McCue v. Sheriff of Ramsey County 51 N.W. 112 Minn. 1892
800 ;) State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ( 34 N. W. Rep.
McCormick v. Village of West Duluth 50 N.W. 128 Minn. 1891
McCormick v. Village of West Duluth 50 N.W. 128 Minn. 1891
800 ;) State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ( 34 N. W. Rep.
Wellcome v. Town of Monticello 42 N.W. 930 Minn. 1889
Wellcome v. Town of Monticello 42 N.W. 930 Minn. 1889
788 ;) State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ( 34 N. W. Rep.
Stemper v. Higgins 37 N.W. 95 Minn. 1888
Stemper v. Higgins 37 N.W. 95 Minn. 1888
144 ;) State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ( 34 N. W. Rep.
Bradish v. Lucken 36 N.W. 454 Minn. 1888
Bradish v. Lucken 36 N.W. 454 Minn. 1888
State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322 , ( 34 N. W. Rep.