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 1911–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp.
green
1 sentence1995This court held that the limitations defense presented “a proper scope issue which may be effortlessly decided by the trial court during an action to stay arbitration.” Id. at 563-64 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State Ex Rel. City of New Prague v. County of Scott
green
2 sentences1951City of New Prague v. County of Scott, 195 Minn. 111 , 261 N. W. 863 , as one of the cases upon which it relies. 1951City of New Prague v. County of Scott, 195 Minn. 111 , 261 N. W. 863 , as one of the cases upon which it relies. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Allen v. Ruland
green
2 sentences1931In their case the parol evidence does not apply, but they will be permitted to go outside of the writing and show the exact transaction, even though the evidence offered may contradict the terms expressed.” A great number of decisions are cited to sustain the text; but on examination it will be found that in many correct results were reached without considering the limitations of the rule suggested by Wigmore and Williston or in Allen v. Ruland, 79 Conn. 405 , 65 A. 138 , 118 A. S. R. 146, 8 Ann. 1931In their case the parol evidence does not apply, but they will be permitted to go outside of the writing and show the exact transaction, even though the evidence offered may contradict the terms expressed.” A great number of decisions are cited to sustain the text; but on examination it will be found that in many correct results were reached without considering the limitations of the rule suggested by Wigmore and Williston or in Allen v. Ruland, 79 Conn. 405 , 65 A. 138 , 118 A. S. R. 146, 8 Ann. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Campbell v. Aarstad
green
2 sentences1921This statement was repeated in Campbell v. Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284 , 144 N. W. 956 , and there was further reference to the proper limitations of the doctrine in Nickolay v. Orr, 142 Minn. 846 , 172 N. W. 222 . 1921This statement was repeated in Campbell v. Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284 , 144 N. W. 956 , and there was further reference to the proper limitations of the doctrine in Nickolay v. Orr, 142 Minn. 846 , 172 N. W. 222 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Nickolay v. Orr
neutral
1 sentence1921This statement was repeated in Campbell v. Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284 , 144 N. W. 956 , and there was further reference to the proper limitations of the doctrine in Nickolay v. Orr, 142 Minn. 846 , 172 N. W. 222 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Wood v. Wood
green
1 sentence1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Hall v. Board of County Commissioners
neutral
1 sentence1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Common School District No. 85 v. County of Renville
green
2 sentences1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . 1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Farrell v. County of Sibley
green
2 sentences1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . 1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Independent School District No. 47 v. Meeker County
neutral
2 sentences1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . 1920Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , 161 N. W. 152 ; Hall v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133 , 167 N. W. 358 ; Common School District v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. 216 ; Independent School District v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , 173 N. W. 850 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Railroad Co. v. Peniston
green
2 sentences1911That limitation is that the agencies of the federal government are only exempted from state legislation, so far as that legislation may be interfered with, or impair their efficiency in performing the functions by which they are designed to serve that government.” The limitations of the doctrine were pointed out and applied in Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5 , 21 L. ed. 787, where the Union Pacific Railroad Company claimed that its property was exempt from taxation. 1911That limitation is that the agencies of the federal government are only exempted from state legislation, so far as that legislation may be interfered with, or impair their efficiency in performing the functions by which they are designed to serve that government.” The limitations of the doctrine were pointed out and applied in Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5 , 21 L. ed. 787, where the Union Pacific Railroad Company claimed that its property was exempt from taxation. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.