TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. v. City Council of Benson

State Ex Rel. Jacob Minikus v. City Council of Benson and Another. [Fn1]

State ex rel. v. City Council of Benson, 209 N.W. 3 (Minn. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 14, 1926
Docket
No. 25,301.
Judges
Wilson
Citations
209 N.W. 3167 Minn. 3071926 Minn. LEXIS 1317

Opinion of the Court — Wilson

*308 Wilson, C. J.

The relator seeks on writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the city council in annexing territory to the municipality under G. S. 1923, § 1843. He appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to an order dismissing the writ.

Official acts that are purely legislative in their nature cannot be reviewed by certiorari. The fact that an officer dr board in the performance of duty has to ascertain certain facts and, in doing so, de-terminé what the law is, does not of itself render the acts judicial. In order to be judicial the acts must affect the rights or property of a person in a manner analogous to that in which they are affected by proceedings in court. When the proceeding is judicial, no right of appeal being given, certiorari will lie.

In this case it is said that the council had to decide: (1) Whether the petition was signed by a majority of the property owners; and (2) whether the land sought to be annexed abutted the city. It is asserted that these acts are judicial. We think not. This case is analogous to the county commissioners forming a new school district or to proceedings under L. 1895, p. 696, c. 298. It cannot be reviewed by certiorari. In re Petition of Johnson, 150 Minn. 524 , 184 N. W. 214 ; Lemont v. Dodge, 39 Minn. 385 , 40 N. W. 359 ; State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , 67 N.

W. 202 . Perhaps the remedy is by quo war-ranto. State v. Kinney, 146 Minn. 311 , 178 N. W. 815 ; Dun. Dig. § 8064; State v. Board, 66 Minn. 519 , 68 N. W. 767 , 69 N. W. 925 , 73 N. W. 631 , 35 L. R. A. 745.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11936: 11951: 11965: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Englewood v. Daily407 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1965)
  2. State ex rel. Huntley School District No. 4 JT. v. Schweickhard45 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1951)
  3. State v. Walso265 N.W. 345 (Minn. 1936)
  4. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. v. City of Owatonna209 N.W. 3 (Minn. 1926)

Most recent

  1. City of Englewood v. Daily407 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1965)
  2. State ex rel. Huntley School District No. 4 JT. v. Schweickhard45 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1951)
  3. State v. Walso265 N.W. 345 (Minn. 1936)
  4. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. v. City of Owatonna209 N.W. 3 (Minn. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Childs v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 68 N.W. 767 (Minn. 1896) 25
State ex rel. Hardy v. Clough, 67 N.W. 202 (Minn. 1896) 16
State ex rel. Hilton v. Vill. of Kinney, 178 N.W. 815 (Minn. 1920) 15
Lemont v. Cnty. of Dodge, 40 N.W. 359 (Minn. 1888) 6
In re Johnson, 184 N.W. 214 (Minn. 1921) 3
Oelschlegel v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 73 N.W. 631 (Minn. 1898) 31

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list