Benson Cooperative Creamery Association v. First District Association
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 1999, 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
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Benson Cooperative Creamery Ass'n v. First District Ass'n (Minn. 1969)
- Peterson v. Sorlien (Minn. 1980)
- Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor (Minn. 1999)
- State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
- Harris v. Mardan Business Systems, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
- Hayes v. Northwood Panelboard Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- W.K.T. Distributing Company v. Sharp Electronics Corporation (8th Cir. 1984)
- Terfehr v. Kleinfehn (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Abel v. JC Penney Co., Inc. (D. Minn. 1980)
- Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc. (Minn. 1979)
- City of Minneapolis v. Richardson (Minn. 1976)
- Easton Farmers Elevator Co. v. Chromalloy American Corp. (Minn. 1976)
- Busse v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, SIBLEY (Minn. 1976)
- Johnson v. Radde (Minn. 1972)
- Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Company (D. Minn. 1969)
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
BENSON COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION, Appellant,
v.
FIRST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Barnard, Hilleren & Spates, Benson, Hall, Frazier & Crokin, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.
Erickson, Popham, Haik & Schnobrick and Rolfe A. Worden, Minneapolis, amicus curiae.
Doherty, Rumble & Butler and Harold Jordan, St. Paul, George H. Neperud, Dassel, for respondents.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from clerk's taxation of costs.
In this case plaintiff was appellant and defendants respondents. Defendants interposed a cross-appeal. Plaintiff prevailed on one issue and defendants prevailed on other issues. Plaintiff has taxed costs in the sum of $1,583.99 and defendants have taxed costs in the sum of $259 on their cross-appeal. Much of plaintiff's costs relates to the printing of the record, a large part of which involved the issues on which defendants prevailed. The costs should be apportioned between them. The total costs taxed *183 by plaintiff and defendants together amount to the sum of $1,842.99. One-half thereof is $921.50. Deducting costs taxed by defendants leaves a balance of $662.50.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff be allowed costs and disbursements in the sum of $921.50 from which there shall be deducted the sum of defendants' costs amounting to $259, leaving a balance in favor of plaintiff of $662.50.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.