State ex rel. Pardee v. Erickson

167 N.W. 734, 140 Minn. 509, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 666
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 23, 1918·No. No. 21,014·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

Chapter 446, p. 752, Laws 1917, is so clearly special legislation upon a subject prohibited by the Constitution that the majority of the court entertain no doubt that the act is void. There is now no city except Minneapolis to which it can apply, and it is inconceivable that if hereafter, by increase of population, other cities should come into the class covered by the act there could be the requisite number of senatorial districts to bring such cities within the operation of the law.

Respondent is therefore ordered and directed to place the names of the candidates who have already filed for school director of the board of education of the city of Minneapolis, and the names of the candidates who may hereafter file for said office, upon the baliot in the manner directed by the law as it exists unaffected by said chapter 446, p. 752, Laws 1917.

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

State ex rel. Pardee v. Erickson, 167 N.W. 734, 140 Minn. 509, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 666 (Mich. 1918).

167 N.W. 734 (State ex rel. Pardee v. Erickson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Stanchfield v. Salisbury
37 N.W.2d 444 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
State Ex Rel. Welsh v. Darling
246 N.W. 390 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1933)
State Ex Rel. Hilton v. Independent School District No. 1
204 N.W. 572 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Jensen v. Independent School District No. 17
204 N.W. 49 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)