State ex rel. City of Faribault v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad
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 1929, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- City of St. Paul v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1929)
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
The questions of law in this case are determined by State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, 28 N. W. 3, 59 Am. 343, State v. Minn. Transfer Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 108, 83 N. W. 32, 50 L. R. A. 656, State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., supra, page 380, and State v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., supra, page 429.
The principal controversy of fact concerns the necessity for the construction of such a viaduct as is required by the permanent writ of mandamus granted by the trial court. That writ left open the exact details of the plans and specifications, so that the only essential question left open for review is the propriety of the court’s finding that a new construction was necessary. The use by the public was not, as defendant insists, merely sporadic or in any sense continuous or insignificant. The street in question led from a principal business street of the city, across the track of the defendant and the Straight
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.