Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Steffenson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 53 N.W. 800.

28 citing documents.

Qvale v. City of Willmar 25 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1946
Shannon v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , ; State ex rel.
State v. Henspeter 271 N.W. 700 Minn. 1937
State v. Henspeter 271 N.W. 700 Minn. 1937
Brown v. Fitzgerald, 51 Minn. 531 , , that there is no need of further discussion.
In Re Appeal of Meyer 223 N.W. 135 Minn. 1929
Shannon v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , 543 , , 55 N.W.
Independent School District No. 47 v. Meeker County 173 N.W. 850 Minn. 1919
51 Minn. 539 , , the paper book discloses that a member of the board making the assessment under review by the court, as well as the clerk of the hoard, testified as to the methods and the reasons for making the same.
Hughes v. Farnsworth 163 N.W. 525 Minn. 1917
Similar principles were involved in State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , , and City of Duluth v. Davidson, 97 Minn. 378 , .
McMahon v. Illinois Central Railroad 148 N.W. 446 Minn. 1914
McMahon v. Illinois Central Railroad 148 N.W. 446 Minn. 1914
Co. 51 Minn. 531 , ; Kelly v. Southern Minn. Ry.
Vaneff v. Great Northern Railway Co. 138 N.W. 1027 Minn. 1912
Vaneff v. Great Northern Railway Co. 138 N.W. 1027 Minn. 1912
Hider v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 132 N.W. 316 Minn. 1911
Hider v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 132 N.W. 316 Minn. 1911
Mayer v. City of Shakopee 130 N.W. 77 Minn. 1911
State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 29 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , .
City of Duluth v. Davidson 107 N.W. 151 Minn. 1906
State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , ; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 95 Minn. 503 , .
State ex rel. Eaton v. District Court 104 N.W. 553 Minn. 1905
State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 29 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , .
Hause v. City of St. Paul 102 N.W. 221 Minn. 1905
Paul, 54 Minn. 219 , ; City of Duluth v. Dibblee, 62 Minn. 18 , ; State v. District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , .
Hawkins v. Horton 97 N.W. 1053 Minn. 1904
The case at bar is wholly unlike State v. Judges, 51 Minn. 539 , , , Fitzhugh v. Duluth City, 58 Minn. 427 , , and City of Duluth v. Dibblee, 62 Minn. 18 , .
State v. Robert P. Lewis Co. 85 N.W. 207 Minn. 1901
In State v. Judges *397 of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , , it was held that an assessment by the board of public works under the charter of the city of Duluth was void, because the board adopted an arbitrary rule, without regard to benefits.
King v. City of Duluth 83 N.W. 526 Minn. 1900
King v. City of Duluth 83 N.W. 526 Minn. 1900
Co., 51 Minn. 531 , ; Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Delude v. St.
Lane v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 69 N.W. 463 Minn. 1896
Lane v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 69 N.W. 463 Minn. 1896
P. R. Co., 51 Minn. 531 , ; Delude v. St.
Keough v. City of St. Paul 68 N.W. 843 Minn. 1896
The cases on which the city relies as sustaining its contention are State v. District Court, 44 Minn. 244 , ; State v. District Court Judges, 51 Minn. 539 , , and ; and Sang v. Duluth City, 58 Minn. 81 , .
Van Doren v. Wright 67 N.W. 668 Minn. 1896
Van Doren v. Wright 67 N.W. 668 Minn. 1896
Co., 51 Minn. 531 , , we suppose that this exception would not be good.
In re Piedmont Ave. East 61 N.W. 678 Minn. 1894
v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , ( , and ) — filed December 16, 1892.
Fitzhugh v. Duluth City 59 N.W. 1041 Minn. 1894
State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , ( , and .)
State ex rel. Shannon v. Judges of District Court of Eleventh Judicial District 53 N.W. 800 Minn. 1892

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by