Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1877–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
First National Bank of St. Paul v. Amesgreen2 sentences1996Nelson v. McNulty, 135 Minn. 317, 319 , 160 N.W. 795, 796 (1917); First Nat’l Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 179 , 39 N.W. 308, 308 (1888). 1996Nelson v. McNulty, 135 Minn. 317, 319 , 160 N.W. 795, 796 (1917); First Nat’l Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 179 , 39 N.W. 308, 308 (1888). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. McNultygreen2 sentences1996Nelson v. McNulty, 135 Minn. 317, 319 , 160 N.W. 795, 796 (1917); First Nat’l Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 179 , 39 N.W. 308, 308 (1888). 1996Nelson v. McNulty, 135 Minn. 317, 319 , 160 N.W. 795, 796 (1917); First Nat’l Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 179 , 39 N.W. 308, 308 (1888). | 1 | 1 |
Finucane v. . Warnergreen2 sentences1996See Sofge v. Lowe, 131 Tenn. 626 , 176 S.W. 106 , 108 (1915) (holding protection of exemption is lost if a witness’s litigation matters are intermingled with other business); Finucane v. Warner, 194 N.Y. 160 , 86 N.E. 1118, 1119 (1909) (determining exemption privilege did not attach to witness because he attended to other business while in the state). 1996See Sofge v. Lowe, 131 Tenn. 626 , 176 S.W. 106 , 108 (1915) (holding protection of exemption is lost if a witness’s litigation matters are intermingled with other business); Finucane v. Warner, 194 N.Y. 160 , 86 N.E. 1118, 1119 (1909) (determining exemption privilege did not attach to witness because he attended to other business while in the state). | 1 | 1 |
Sofge v. Lowegreen1 sentence1996See Sofge v. Lowe, 131 Tenn. 626 , 176 S.W. 106 , 108 (1915) (holding protection of exemption is lost if a witness’s litigation matters are intermingled with other business); Finucane v. Warner, 194 N.Y. 160 , 86 N.E. 1118, 1119 (1909) (determining exemption privilege did not attach to witness because he attended to other business while in the state). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pagel v. Pagel
green
2 sentences1935In re Estate of Hallbom, 189 Minn. 383 , 249 N.W. 417 , affirmed, Pagel v. Pagel, 291 U.S. 473 , 54 S.Ct. 497 , 78 L. ed. 921 . 1935In re Estate of Hallbom, 189 Minn. 383 , 249 N.W. 417 , affirmed, Pagel v. Pagel, 291 U.S. 473 , 54 S.Ct. 497 , 78 L. ed. 921 . | 2 | 1935–1935 |
In Re Estate of Hallbom
neutral
2 sentences1935In re Estate of Hallbom, 189 Minn. 383 , 249 N.W. 417 , affirmed, Pagel v. Pagel, 291 U.S. 473 , 54 S.Ct. 497 , 78 L. ed. 921 . 1935In re Estate of Hallbom, 189 Minn. 383 , 249 N.W. 417 , affirmed, Pagel v. Pagel, 291 U.S. 473 , 54 S.Ct. 497 , 78 L. ed. 921 . | 2 | 1935–1935 |
Stewart v. Rhoades
neutral
2 sentences1926Stewart v. Rhoades, 39 Minn. 193 , 39 N. W. 141 . 1926Stewart v. Rhoades, 39 Minn. 193 , 39 N. W. 141 . | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1885Co., 21 Minn. 315 , involving the entire land grant of the company, its taxability depending on a constitutional question; State v. Same, Id. 472, involving about 600,000 acres, the question being whether a certain transaction, which left the legal title in the company, was, in effect, a sale and conveyance, within the meaning of the exemption clause in the grant; County of Nobles v. Sioux City & St. | 1 | 1885–1885 |
First Division of St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. City of St. Paul
neutral
1 sentence1877Paul, 21 Minn. 526 , that the provision of that act applicable to the former company, as respects the subject of taxation, (§ 18, c. 1, of said act,) clearly exempts that company and its successors from all local assessments like the one in question; yet it is claimed by the plaintiff that this rule does not apply to the other three companies, because of the difference in the phraseology of the section applicable to them, (§ 9, c. 3 of said act.) The exemption clause in section 18 specifically exempts that company from “ all assessments and taxes whatsoever,” etc., whereas section 9 only provi | 1 | 1877–1877 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.