Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Briggs v. Shea, 50 N.W. 1037.

23 citing documents.

Marriage of Perry v. Perry 749 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Perry v. Perry 749 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218, 219 , 50 N.W.
CONDEMNATION BY HOUS. & REDEV. v. Suh 553 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
449 (1913) and Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221
State v. Rust 98 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1959
Curtis v. Jackson, 23 Minn. 268 ; Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221 , ; St.
Kafka v. O'Malley 22 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1946
In Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221, 222 , , where a discontinuance of an action in justice court resulted from a continuance thereof for more than a week ivithout pleadings and, before the adjourned date, the parties consented that the case be adjourned to another date with the right to file pleadings then, we held that, although the original continuanc
In Re Estate of Van Sloun 272 N.W. 261 Minn. 1937
Eespondent did nothing to indicate that he was asking the court to exercise its discretion, nor did he at any time so act as to assume *436 that jurisdiction existed so as to bring himself within the rule of Burt v. Bailey, 21 Minn. 403 , or Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221 , .
State ex rel. Spratt v. Spratt 184 N.W. 31 Minn. 1921
State ex rel. Spratt v. Spratt 184 N.W. 31 Minn. 1921
See also Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , .
Carr-Cullen Co. v. Cooper 175 N.W. 696 Minn. 1920
Curtis v. Jackson, 23 Minn. 268 ; Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221 , ; St.
Quaker Creamery Co. v. Carlson 144 N.W. 449 Minn. 1913
As stated in Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221 , , it is a rule of universal application that a party may, by consent, give jurisdiction over his person, and it follows as a consequence that, where there is any defect of jurisdiction, or it has ceased, he may waive the objection, and does so when he takes or consents to any step in the cause which assumes that juris
Spitzhak v. Regenik 142 N.W. 709 Minn. 1913
Wrolson v. Anderson, 53 Minn. 508 , ; see also Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221 , ; Oltman v. Yost, 62 Minn. 261 , ; McCubrey v. Lankis, 74 Minn. 302 , .
Longcor v. Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. 142 N.W. 310 Minn. 1913
Co. 53 Minn. 129, 131 , : “The rule is that an appearance for any other purpose than to question the jurisdiction of the court is general;” by Chief Justice Gilfillan, in Johnson v. Hagberg, 48 Minn. 221, 222 , , 1038: “It is a rule of universal application that parties may, by consent, give jurisdiction over the person, and it follows as a consequence that, where there is any defect of jurisdiction, or it has ceased, the parties may waive the objection, and they do so when they take or consent
Scofield v. Scheaffer 116 N.W. 211 Minn. 1908
Scofield v. Scheaffer 116 N.W. 211 Minn. 1908
Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , ; State v. Young, 44 Minn. 76 , .
Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co. 110 N.W. 257 Minn. 1907
Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co. 110 N.W. 257 Minn. 1907
La Crosse & M. Packet Co. v. Reynolds, 12 Minn. 135 (213); Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , .
State v. Fellows 108 N.W. 825 Minn. 1906
State v. Fellows 108 N.W. 825 Minn. 1906
Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218
United States Investment Corp. v. Ulrickson 86 N.W. 613 Minn. 1901
United States Investment Corp. v. Ulrickson 86 N.W. 613 Minn. 1901
Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , , and Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , .
St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. Village of Hinckley 54 N.W. 940 Minn. 1893
St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. Village of Hinckley 54 N.W. 940 Minn. 1893
204 ,) and Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218 , ( 50 N. W. Rep.
Johnson v. Hagberg 50 N.W. 1037 Minn. 1892