Home/North Dakota Supreme Court/Petition of Teigen

Petition of Teigen

221 N.W.2d 94, 71 A.L.R. 3d 488, 1974 N.D. LEXIS 170
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 2, 1974
DocketCiv. 9044
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 221 N.W.2d 94 (Petition of Teigen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Petition of Teigen, 221 N.W.2d 94, 71 A.L.R. 3d 488, 1974 N.D. LEXIS 170 (N.D. 1974).

Opinions

ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.

On the 23rd of July 1974 William R. Pearce filed an affidavit with this court, saying:

“I
“That he is a citizen and resident of the State of North Dakota, residing in the City of Bismarck; that he is the president of the State Bar Board of North Dakota.
“II
“That affiant is informed and believes that Torfin Austin Teigen, whose place of residence is 346 21st Street North, Fargo, North Dakota, has filed with the Secretary of State of North Dakota nominating petitions for the said Torfin Austin Teigen, for the office of judge of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota.
“HI
“That your affiant is informed and believes that the Secretary of State of North Dakota is about to and will, unless otherwise restrained, certify the name of said Torfin Austin Teigen to the County Auditors in the State of North Dakota as a candidate for said office, and that his name be placed upon the ballots or in the appropriate places in voting machines to be voted upon as a candidate for said office at the primary election on September 3, 1974.
“tV
“That your affiant believes that an error is about to occur in the placing of the name of said Torfin Austin Teigen on an official election ballot for the following reasons:
“1. That under Section 94 of the Constitution of North Dakota no person shall be eligible to the office of judge of the Supreme Court unless he be learned in the law.
“2. That your affiant believes that the phrase ‘learned in the law’ is synonymous with and means ‘admitted to the bar’ or ‘admitted to practice’ by the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, or to be entitled thereto.
“3. That the State Bar Board is the keeper of the record and roll of all applications for admissions and admissions to the bar of this State under Section 27-11-05 of the North Dakota Century Code.
“4. That the said Torfin Austin Tei-gen has never been admitted to the bar of the State of North Dakota nor to the best knowledge, information and belief of this affiant is he entitled to become admitted to the bar, and that his name does not appear in the roll of those persons admitted to the bar in the State of North Dakota.
“5. That affiant verily believes that the said Torfin Austin Teigen does not have the qualification prescribed by the Constitution of the State of North Dakota to be eligible for the office of judge of the Supreme Court of North Dakota [96]*96and that it would be error for the Secretary of State of North Dakota to certify to the County Auditors the name of Tor-fin Austin Teigen to be placed on official ballots or appear in voting machines.
“V
“Affiant makes and files this affidavit with the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-01-10, North Dakota Century Code.”

In response to that affidavit it was ordered that the Secretary of State, Mr. Ben Meier, be enjoined from certifying the name of Torfin Austin Teigen to the County Auditors of the State of North Dakota for nomination to the office of judge of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota or show cause at 2 p.m., Friday, August 2, 1974, in the courtroom of the North Dakota Supreme Court, why he should not be so enjoined from certifying the name of Torfin Austin Teigen to the County Auditors of the State of North Dakota as a candidate for said office.

The order authorized Torfin Austin Tei-gen to present written affidavits in support of his qualification for the office of judge of the Supreme Court and informed him that he might be represented by counsel at the hearing. The order also required that legal briefs be filed with this court and served upon all interested parties by all interested parties at least two days prior to the date of the hearing on the order to show cause.

Since the date of the order, to-wit, the 24th day of July 1974, the Secretary of State has filed an answer and return with this court, stating:

“1.
“That he has not been given the authority to make inquiry of Torfin Austin Teigen to determine whether he is, in fact, ‘learned in the law’ as the term is used in Section 94 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota.
“2.
“That he is without discretionary authority to refuse to accept a petition from the named Torfin Austin Teigen on the alleged basis that Mr. Teigen lacks the constitutional qualification of being ‘learned in the law’.
“3.
“That he has properly and regularly carried out the administrative functions imposed upon his office by the Constitution and statutes of the State of North Dakota with regard to the receipt of the petitions filed by Mr. Torfin Austin Tei-gen as a candidate for the office of judge of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, and that if such petitions appear proper in form and contain the requisite number of signatures, the name of Torfin Austin Teigen will be certified to the various county auditors of this State for the purpose of facilitating the placing of Mr. Teigen’s name on the ballot for the forthcoming primary election, unless otherwise restrained by a lawful order of this Court;
“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the fact that the Respondent, Ben Meier, as Secretary of State, is not the candidate whose qualifications are being challenged by the Petitioner, the Respondent respectfully places this matter before the Court for determination.”

Mr. Teigen has not filed an affidavit with us, but through the 'mails our court did receive a document, a photocopy of which follows:

[97]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Berg v. Jaeger
2020 ND 178 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
Abrams v. Lamone
919 A.2d 1223 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
Heathscott v. Raff
973 S.W.2d 799 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1998)
State Ex Rel. Haught v. Donnahoe
321 S.E.2d 677 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1984)
Nielsen v. Neuharth
331 N.W.2d 58 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1983)
Petition of Teigen
221 N.W.2d 94 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 N.W.2d 94, 71 A.L.R. 3d 488, 1974 N.D. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-of-teigen-nd-1974.