Citation network
Stearns Vs. Minnesota
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 03, 1900
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 223 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
U.S. 223 (1900) Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
validated by the constitutional amendment of 1871. The legal effect of such amendment was to validate them. State v. LutherSearch
-
S. 232 can inquire into the manner in which the State executed that trust and disposed of the lands. Emigrant Co. v. CountySearch
-
relieve us from the duty of an independent judgment upon the question of contract or no contract. In Douglas v. KentuckySearch
-
obligation has been impaired by the state enactment, has been affirmed in numerous other cases. Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. DeboltSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens'Search
-
Railroad v. DennisSearch
-
N. O. Waterworks Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
Bryan v. BoardSearch
-
Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. TennesseeSearch
-
McCullough v. VirginiaSearch
-
Walsh v. ColumbusSearch
-
the decisions of the Supreme Court of Minnesota prior to the one challenged in this proceeding. In Railroad Company v. ParcherSearch
-
disposed of the lands to the present plaintiffs in error. This decision was recognized and reaffirmed in St. Paul v. RailroadSearch
-
County of Stevens v. RailwaySearch
-
Company, may be now accepted without question. It was so decided eighteen years ago in the case of the last-named company v. ParcherSearch
-
Minn. 224, 297, which decision has been ever since followed. State v. WinonaSearch
-
Minnesota Central Ry. Co. v. MelvinSearch
-
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. PfaenderSearch
-
County of Nobles v. SiouxSearch
-
State v. NorthernSearch
-
And also State v. LutherSearch
-
to the same conditions under which the lands in controversy were granted to the plaintiffs in error. In McHenry v. AlfordSearch
-
not necessarily an infringement of a constitutional provision requiring such taxation. Thus, in County of Hennepin v. RailwaySearch
-
And in County of Ramsey v. RailwaySearch
-
So also, in County of Todd v. RailwaySearch
-
County of Ramsey v. ChicagoSearch
-
And further, in St. Paul v. RailwaySearch
-
As was said in Ramsey County v. ChicagoSearch
-
And again, in State v. LutherSearch
-
ignoring the right of the other party to the contract, has been adjudged by this court in Louisville Water company v. ClarkSearch
-
lands within that State was reserved, and, according to the decision in Van Page 179 U. S. 243 Brocklin v. StateSearch
-
a compact or agreement with one another, but only placed a condition upon the exercise of such power. Thus, in Green v. BiddleSearch
-
to it that, within certain restrictions, it limited the legislative power of the State of Kentucky. In Poole v. FleegerSearch
-
The same doctrine was announced in Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
their franchises and property, within the limits of the reservation. And in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Company v. LoweSearch
-
Beecher v. WetherbySearch
-
Page 179 U. S. 250 validity has not only never been questioned, but has been directly affirmed. Tucker v. FergusonSearch
-
Wall. 527. There is nothing in the case of Van Brocklin v. StateSearch
-
or homesteader the legal evidence of his title does not relieve the land from ordinary state taxation. Carroll v. SaffordSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial