Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Currie v. Weld, 40 N.W. 561.

35 citing documents.

Olson v. State 742 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Olson v. State 742 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426, 428 , 40 N.W.
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 684 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2004
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 684 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2004
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426, 428 , 40 N.W.
Haen v. Renville County Board of Commissioners 495 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haen v. Renville County Board of Commissioners 495 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
A trial court considering a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus “may grant the relief in any form consistent with the case made by the complaint, and embraced within the issues.” State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426, 429 , 40 N.W.
McKee v. Likins 261 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1977
McKee v. Likins 261 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1977
4 *571 Thus, as early as 1888, Mr. Justice Mitchell declared for this court in a case in which “ ‘freeholders, tax-payers, and legal voters’ ” of a county brought an action to compel county officers to perform certain acts required by law that “where the object is * * * to enforce a public duty * * any private person may move to enforce it.” State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426, 428 , 40 N.W.
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P. 216 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1974
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P. 216 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1974
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426
Waters v. Putnam 183 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1971
Waters v. Putnam 183 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1971
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , .
State v. Haller 78 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
State v. Haller 78 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , .
STATE EX. REL. SHOLES v. University of Minnesota 54 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1952
STATE EX. REL. SHOLES v. University of Minnesota 54 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1952
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , , and Regan v. Babcock, 188 Minn. 192 , , it was not necessary to seek relief from the board of regents before proceeding in court, for the reason that the board would have denied the relief in any event.
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , ; State ex rel.
Regan v. Babcock 247 N.W. 12 Minn. 1933
Regan v. Babcock 247 N.W. 12 Minn. 1933
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , 428 , 40 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Passer v. County Board of Renville County 213 N.W. 545 Minn. 1927
State Ex Rel. Passer v. County Board of Renville County 213 N.W. 545 Minn. 1927
Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , .
State ex rel. Schwartzkopf v. City Council of Brainerd 141 N.W. 97 Minn. 1913
State ex rel. Schwartzkopf v. City Council of Brainerd 141 N.W. 97 Minn. 1913
The rule is thus laid down in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , , and in the note to State v. Gardner, 98 Am.
State ex rel. Babcock v. County of Chisago 131 N.W. 792 Minn. 1911
State ex rel. Babcock v. County of Chisago 131 N.W. 792 Minn. 1911
In State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , , it is said: “The proceeding is therefore now so elastic that the peremptory writ need not precisely follow the alternative one, but the court, upon the hearing, may grant the relief in any form consistent with the case made by the complaint, and embraced within the issues.” The trial court should have
Village of Excelsior v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railway Co. 120 N.W. 526 Minn. 1909
Village of Excelsior v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railway Co. 120 N.W. 526 Minn. 1909
Again in State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , , the court construed the statute as to the serving notice of trial in the district court, which required the notice to be served “at least eight days before the term,” and held that in the computation of the eight days the day of service should be excluded and the first day of the term included.
State ex rel. Townsend v. Board of Park Commissioners 110 N.W. 1121 Minn. 1907
Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co. 77 N.W. 38 Minn. 1898
Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co. 77 N.W. 38 Minn. 1898
Corp. (4th Ed.) §§ 914-922, and cases cited; Sinclair v. Board of Co. Commrs., 23 Minn. 404 ; State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , ; Todd v. Rustad, 43 Minn. 500 , .
Todd v. Rustad 46 N.W. 73 Minn. 1890
Todd v. Rustad 46 N.W. 73 Minn. 1890
State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , ( 40 N. W. Rep.
State ex rel. Lum v. Archibald 45 N.W. 606 Minn. 1890
State ex rel. Lum v. Archibald 45 N.W. 606 Minn. 1890
The suggestion of appellant that the relator has not such a beneficial interest in the subject-matter of this controversy as entitled him to file the information upon which this proceeding is based, is disposed of by State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426 , ( 40 N. W. Rep.