State v. Weyerhauser
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 2012, 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
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Anderson v. Ritterbusch (Okla. 1908)
- State v. Brist (Minn. 2012)
- Kahn v. Griffin (Minn. 2005)
- Meadowbrook Manor, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park (Minn. 1960)
- Dayton Co. v. Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Floor Decorators' Union (Minn. 1949)
- State v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Minn. 1942)
- Vermejo Club v. French (N.M. 1938)
- In re Proceedings to Enforce Payment of Taxes on Real Estate Remaining Delinquent (Minn. 1920)
- W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Minn. 1915)
- Oakland Cemetery Ass'n v. County of Ramsey (Minn. 1906)
- Board of State Tax Commissioners v. Board of Assessors (Mich. 1900)
- Iowa National Bank v. Stewart (Iowa 1930)
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
These proceedings were under the same statute, and are identical in all material facts with those of the same title considered in 68 Minn. 353, 71 N. W. 265, in which the statute (Laws 1893, c. 151, G. S. 1894, § 1633), was assailed as being in violation of certain provisions of the constitution of the state. In addition to the objections there urged against the validity of the statute, it is now urged that it is in violation of certain provisions of the federal constitution, particularly article 1, § 10, providing that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, and the fourteenth amendment, which provides that no state shall deprive any person of his property without due process of law7, or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These fundamental constitutional principles are common to both the federal and the state constitutions, and the only effect of making them a part of the former is to render the supreme court of the United States the final arbiter in cases where their violation by a
We shall only make the following suggestions, viz.: Real-estate taxes assessed under this statute cannot be collected or enforced by distraint of goods, but can be collected or enforced only by proceedings in the nature of a civil action against the land, of which the owner has notice, which is “due process of law” as applied to such proceedings, and in which he may interpose by way of defense all objections to the tax which go to the merits of the proceedings; also, that there is no distinction in principle between a case where land has wholly escaped taxation by reason of its omission from the assessment roll and one where, by reason of a fraudulent or grossly inadequate assessment, it has escaped a part of its just share of the public burdens.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.