Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Shannon v. Judges of District Court of Eleventh Judicial District, 53 N.W. 800.

29 citing documents.

Qvale v. City of Willmar 25 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1946
Qvale v. City of Willmar 25 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1946
Shannon v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , , ; State ex rel.
In Re Appeal of Meyer 223 N.W. 135 Minn. 1929
In Re Appeal of Meyer 223 N.W. 135 Minn. 1929
Shannon v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , 543 , 53 N.W.
Independent School District No. 47 v. Meeker County 173 N.W. 850 Minn. 1919
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
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 , .
Mayer v. City of Shakopee 130 N.W. 77 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
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 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
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
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
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.
Keough v. City of St. Paul 68 N.W. 843 Minn. 1896
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 , .
In re Piedmont Ave. East 61 N.W. 678 Minn. 1894
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
Fitzhugh v. Duluth City 59 N.W. 1041 Minn. 1894
State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , ( , and .)
State ex rel. Bunnell v. Ensign 56 N.W. 41 Minn. 1893
State ex rel. Bunnell v. Ensign 56 N.W. 41 Minn. 1893
v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 , ( 53 N. W. Rep.
Steffenson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. 53 N.W. 800 Minn. 1892