Legal Opinion

Seidlitz v. County of Faribault

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 1, 1952No. 35,617PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Upon Petition for Rehearing.

Knutson, Justice.

Because of the public interest in our rural communities in the issues involved in this case, we granted leave to several amici curiae to file briefs in support of a petition for rehearing subsequent to the filing of our opinion in this case. We also granted leave to other amid curiae to file briefs in opposition to such rehearing. The briefs filed have been quite helpful in pointing out possible room for misconstruction of our opinion. We do not believe a rehearing is necessary. There may be room, however, for clarification of what we intended to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Myles Salt Co. v. Board of Comm'rs of Iberia and St. Mary Drainage Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
  3. Lipes v. HandIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Erickson v. Cass CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Zinser v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, Martin CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  2. In Re Petition of LippmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  3. Oelke v. County of FaribaultSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  4. Fairmont Real Estate & Investment Co. v. County of MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  5. Laue v. County of FaribaultSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API