Legal Opinion
In re Hull
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 19, 1925No. 23,730PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
The owners of the land embraced in the plat of the townsite of the village of Hibbing, commonly known as the north forty, applied to the.district court of St. Louis county for the vacation of the plat. The application was granted and property owners in Pillsbury and Southern additions, which lie south of and adjacent to the plat vacated, have appealed from the judgment and from an order denying their motion to set it aside and dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
For a statement of many of the pertinent facts, we refer to Reed v. Village of Hibbing, 150 Minn. 130, 184 N. W.…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Austin v. Augusta Terminal Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- City of East St. Louis v. O'FlynnIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Stanwood v. City of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Tilly v. Mitchell & Lewis Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- DuPuy v. City of WacoTexas Supreme Court · 1965
- Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Sanders v. . SmithfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Ralph v. HazenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1937
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.