State ex rel. Childs v. Village of Fridley Park
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1958, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound (Minn. 1951)
- State Ex Rel. Township of Copley v. Village of Webb (Minn. 1957)
- Grudnosky v. Bislow (Minn. 1958)
- State Ex Rel. Northern Pump Co. v. Village of Fridley (Minn. 1951)
- State Ex Rel. v. So-Called "Village of Minnewashta" (Minn. 1925)
- State ex rel. Hilton v. City of Nashwauk (Minn. 1922)
- State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover (Minn. 1911)
- State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice (Minn. 1910)
- State ex rel. Young v. Village of Gilbert (Minn. 1909)
- State ex rel. Young v. Village of Harris (Minn. 1907)
- State ex rel. Douglas v. Village of Holloway (Minn. 1903)
- State ex rel. Town of Holland v. Lammers (Wis. 1902)
- State ex rel. Childs v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn. 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This proceeding is to be determined by an application of the principles laid down in State v. Minnetonka, 57 Minn. 526, 59 N. W. 972, to the undisputed facts. From the maps made a part of the information and the answer, we learn that the territory included within the village in question is all of a fractional congressional township, except two sections in the southeast corner,
On two full sections of land there are no structures, while on the balance, about 14 sections, except as hereinafter stated, the number of buildings range from 3 to 12. These buildings are houses, bams, and “milk dairies.” Exactly what buildings are included within this term does not appear, but within the incorporation there are 17 of these dairies. Two parallel lines of railway traverse the village northerly and southerly, each road having a station in section 15; and the only aggregation of buildings which indicates an approach to a “village,” in the usual and ordinary meaning of that word, is to be found in the vicinity of'these stations. Within half or three-quarters of a mile thereof we find 5 or 6 dwellings and barns, a church, schoolhouse, store, gristmill, soda manufactory, pump factory, and 12 or 14 structures used for various purposes not specifically named. At least 60 per cent, of the inhabitants of the municipality reside outside of this particular assemblage of buildings.
In the case heretofore referred to it was said that the law authorizing the incorporation of villages contemplates, as a fundamental condition to such incorporation, a compact center or nucleus of population on platted lands, and that the term “lands adjacent thereto” means only those lands lying so near and in such close proximity to the platted portion as to be suburban in their character, and to have some unity of interest with the platted portion in the maintenance of a village government. We,are noc prepared to say that about the railway stations and on platted lands there is not a compact center or nucleus of population which could
Under the rules for determining the question enunciated heretofore, it is clear that a writ of ouster should issue. It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.