Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Meyer v. Berlandi, 40 N.W. 513.

51 citing documents.

State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The supreme court, however, found that this statute violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt because it was “not necessary that a contractor be guilty of any fraud or other tort in order to subject him to the penalties of this section.” Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438, 441 , 40 N.W.
Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Construction Co. 535 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1995
Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Construction Co. 535 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1995
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438, 446 , 40 N.W.
State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
In Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , this court ruled the statute unconstitutional, stating: “Section 3, if not unconstitutional on other grounds, is clearly repugnant to section 12, art. 1, of the constitution of the state, prohibiting imprisonment for debt.
Muirhead v. Johnson 46 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1951
Muirhead v. Johnson 46 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1951
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777; 2 Pirsig’s Dunnell, Minn. Pl.
Survis v. A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co. 28 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1947
Survis v. A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co. 28 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1947
For a full understanding of the statute in question, Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 A. S. R. 663, should be examined.
State v. Kelly 15 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1944
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau 7 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1943
Juster Bros. Inc. v. Christgau 7 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1943
277 ; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , 40 N.W.
Blaisdell v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n 249 N.W. 334 Minn. 1933
Zuelke v. Papke 241 N.W. 577 Minn. 1932
Zuelke v. Papke 241 N.W. 577 Minn. 1932
The appellant rests his claim upon the doctrine stated in Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 166 (225); Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 A. S. R. 663; Eide v. Clarke, 65 Minn. 466 , ; Cook v. Bean, 17 Ind.
County of Blue Earth v. Nat. Surety Co. 205 N.W. 277 Minn. 1925
County of Blue Earth v. National Surety Co. 205 N.W. 277 Minn. 1925
State v. Anderson 199 N.W. 6 Minn. 1924
State v. Anderson 199 N.W. 6 Minn. 1924
It should, therefore, show facts enough to fulfill the statutory requirements for a lien.” And the court also in Meyer v. Berlandi, 89 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 Am.
Fauser v. McElroy 195 N.W. 786 Minn. 1923
Fauser v. McElroy 195 N.W. 786 Minn. 1923
If, with knowledge of the fact, they remain silent, acquiescence and consent to the making of the improvements and to the consequences in case the labor and materials are not paid for are conclusively presumed under the statute.” The language in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 Am.
Burns v. Essling 194 N.W. 404 Minn. 1923
Burns v. Essling 194 N.W. 404 Minn. 1923
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 Am.
John v. Timm 190 N.W. 890 Minn. 1922
John v. Timm 190 N.W. 890 Minn. 1922
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 Am.
Berglund & Peterson v. Abram 182 N.W. 624 Minn. 1921
Berglund & Peterson v. Abram 182 N.W. 624 Minn. 1921
Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 358 , ; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , ; Bardwell v. Mann, 46 Minn. 285 , ; Wheaton v. Berg, 50 Minn. 525 , .
State v. Equitable Surety Co. 167 N.W. 292 Minn. 1918
State v. Equitable Surety Co. 167 N.W. 292 Minn. 1918
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L.R.A.
State v. Harris 158 N.W. 829 Minn. 1916
State v. Harris 158 N.W. 829 Minn. 1916
We are cited to the decision in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L.R.A.
Bofferding v. Mengelkoch 152 N.W. 135 Minn. 1915
Bofferding v. Mengelkoch 152 N.W. 135 Minn. 1915
This doctrine was approved in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438, 441 , , 1 L.R.A.
Village of Minneota v. Martin 145 N.W. 383 Minn. 1914
Village of Minneota v. Martin 145 N.W. 383 Minn. 1914
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L.R.A.
Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. 144 N.W. 750 Minn. 1913
Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. 144 N.W. 750 Minn. 1913
in commenting upon the question of constitutionality, said that the mortgagee took his mortgage, “in legal contemplation, with full knowledge of and subject to the right of a person keeping the property at the request of the mortgagor or other lawful possessor to the statutory lien, as he would to a common-law lien.” This statement is questioned because of the language used in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , , 1 L.R.A.
Davis v. Board of County Commissioners 67 N.W. 997 Minn. 1896
Davis v. Board of County Commissioners 67 N.W. 997 Minn. 1896
O’Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 136 , ; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , .
Moore v. City of St. Paul 63 N.W. 1087 Minn. 1895
Moore v. City of St. Paul 63 N.W. 1087 Minn. 1895
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , .
Wheaton v. Berg 52 N.W. 926 Minn. 1892
Wheaton v. Berg 52 N.W. 926 Minn. 1892
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438, 442 , ( 40 N.W.
Glass v. Freeburg 52 N.W. 900 Minn. 1892
McGlauflin v. Beeden 43 N.W. 86 Minn. 1889
McGlauflin v. Beeden 43 N.W. 86 Minn. 1889
And from the other cases cited, as well as from what is said in Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , ( 40 N. W. Rep.
Hill v. Gill 42 N.W. 294 Minn. 1889
Hill v. Gill 42 N.W. 294 Minn. 1889
Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438 , ( 40 N. W. Rep.
St. Paul Foundry Co. v. Wegmann 42 N.W. 288 Minn. 1889