Legal Opinion

Dexner v. Houghton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 20, 1922No. 33,051PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lees, C.

On February 2, 1922, appellant obtained an alternative writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to issue a permit for the erection of a large apartment house, or show cause why he had not done so. At the hearing, had on February 20, appellant moved for judgment on the pleadings and respondent countered with a motion to quash the alternative writ. Appellant’s motion was denied and respondent’s granted. This appeal is from the judgment quashing the writ. An abridged statement of the facts disclosed by the pleadings follows:

Appellant is the vendee in a contract for the sale of four lots…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Duncan Townsite Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Thompson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. State ex inf. Barker v. Kansas City Gas Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
  4. State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
  5. Kanakanui v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Nationwide Corp. v. Northwestern National Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  2. Trumbull County Board of Education v. State Ex Rel. Van WyeOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  3. State Ex Rel. Shelton v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  4. State Ex Rel. Apple v. PenceOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  5. State Ex Rel. Rose Brothers Lumber & Supply Co. v. ClousingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936

8 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