Minnesota Co. v. National Co.
Cases that cite this one
48 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2008)
- Rice v. Clark County (Nev. 1963)
- Petro-Hunt L.L.C. v. United States (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2001)
- Mire v. Hawkins (La. 1966)
- Jensen v. Reno Central Trades & Labor Council (Nev. 1951)
- Dunn v. Micco (10th Cir. 1939)
- Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc. (11th Cir. 2017)
- United States v. Milner (9th Cir. 2009)
- Nevada v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1983)
- Confederated Salish And Kootenai Tribes Of The Flathead Reservation, Montana v. Namen (9th Cir. 1982)
- Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen (9th Cir. 1982)
- North Star Terminal & Stevedore Co. v. State (Alaska 1993)
- Peregoy v. Amoco Production Co. (District Court, E.D. Texas 1990)
- State of Oregon, by and Through the Division of State Lands v. The Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, United States of America (9th Cir. 1989)
- Ozyck v. D'Atri (Conn. 1988)
- Bear v. United States (8th Cir. 1987)
- Housing Authority for La Salle County v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n (Ill. 1984)
- Arizona v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1983)
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mandel (Md. 1982)
- United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (9th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (9th Cir. 1981)
- Oregon Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1977)
- Heyert v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. (N.Y. 1966)
- Harvest Queen Mill & Elevator Co. v. Sanders (Kan. 1962)
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
*334 The court having examined the case,
now delivered its opinion, and after stating the identity of the present case with the former, what was decided in the former and involved in this, and the history as above given, expressed himself in behalf of the Bench as follows:
This is another, and it is to be hoped the last attempt to persuade this court to reverse their decision in this case.
Where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. Such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously affected by their change. Legislatures may alter or change their laws, without injury, as they affect the future only; but where courts vacillate and overrule their own decisions on the construction of statutes affecting the title to real property, their decisions are retrospective and may affect titles purchased on the faith of their stability. Doubtful questions on subjects of this nature, when once decided, should be considered no longer doubtful or subject to change. Parties should not be encouraged to speculate on a change of the law when the administrators of it is changed. Courts ought not to be compelled to bear the infliction of repeated arguments by obstinate litigants, challenging the justice of their well-considered and solemn judgments.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, in conformity with the opinion of this court twice pronounced on the same title, is hereupon
Affirmed with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.