Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 261.08 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1973 c 650 art 21 s 33; 1974 c 355 s 72]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1943–1971 · leading case: Robinette v. Price, 8 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 1943).
Robinette v. Price, 8 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 1943). “§§ 3161-1 and 3161-2), with authority and power, which it is required by mandatory language to exercise, to hear and determine disputes between political subdivisions as to the place of settlement of any poor person; to determine by order in proceedings concerning such disputes…”
Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 14 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 1944). “1941, § 261.08 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 3161-1), for a judicial determination of the Thiede’s place of settlement.”
City of Minneapolis v. Vill. of Brooklyn Ctr., 27 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 1947). “1945, § 261.08, 3 this matter was heard by one of the judges of the district court of Hennepin county, within the boundaries of which both municipalities lie.”
Lucht v. Bell, 8 N.W.2d 26 (Minn. 1943). “1941, §§ 261.08 and 261.09 (Mason St. 1940 Supp.”
In Re Fiihr, 184 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1971). “The position of the welfare department's memorandum at the hearing was not one of uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence, binding respondent, but only of an opinion rendered by a state agency which respondent, under § 261.08, was entitled to challenge in the district court…”
Cnty. of Hennepin v. Cnty. of Becker, 135 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1965). “The decision of the commissioner is final and shall be complied with unless, within 30 days thereafter, action is taken in district court as provided in sections 261.08 and 261.09.” (Italics supplied.”
City of Minneapolis v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 16 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. 1944). “1941, § 261.08 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 3161-1).”
Cnty. of St. Louis v. Cnty. of Scott, 184 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1971). “The position of the welfare department’s memorandum at the hearing was not one of uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence, binding respondent, but only of an opinion rendered by a state agency which respondent, under § 261.08, was entitled to challenge in the district court…”
City of Minneapolis v. Twp. of Indep., 13 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1944). “1941, § 261.08 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 3161-1).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.