Legal Opinion
Lindquist v. Abbett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 24, 1936No. Nos. 30,479, 30,483PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Stone, Justice. .
Defendants appeal from orders denying their several motions for amended findings or a new trial.
This is a taxpayer’s action. Defendants Abbett, Andresen, Coole, Knight, Haney, and Wakeman are six of the nine members of the board of education of the city of Duluth. Defendant Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company is surety for defendant Coole as treasurer of the school district. Defendant Spear is a member of the Duluth bar. The purpose of the action is to compel restitution to the school treasury of a substantial sum which plaintiff alleges was wrongfully paid therefrom to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. West Duluth Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Tousley v. LeachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- County of Hennepin v. RybergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State ex rel. Pine v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
3Cited by8 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Ging v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- Willis v. County of SherburneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Frisk v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DULUTHSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- The Minnesota Daily v. University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
- Madden v. RileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.