State ex rel. Hagestad v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Application by tbe state of Minnesota, on tbe relation of H. N. Hagestad, for a writ of prohibition against F. A. Sullivan and others. A law cannot be uniform in its operation when by its terms it is limited to such portions of the state as may adopt it.
Read the full summary
Application by tbe state of Minnesota, on tbe relation of H. N. Hagestad, for a writ of prohibition against F. A. Sullivan and others. A law cannot be uniform in its operation when by its terms it is limited to such portions of the state as may adopt it. Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264, 269, 33 N. W. 800; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 552, 58 N. W. 150; Johnson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 222, 45 N. W. 156. Laws 1895, c. 229, is particularly obnoxious to this rule, because it may be adopted by some cities of the class specified, rejected by others of that class, or not acted upon by…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
By its application for an absolute writ of prohibition against the respondent Sullivan to restrain him from acting as judge of the municipal court of the city of East Grand Forks, the state challenges the constitutionality of Laws 1895, c. 229, én*381titled “An act to establish municipal courts in incorporated cities having a population of less than 5,000 inhabitants.”
The act in question, after providing that there is thereby established a municipal court in each incorporated city in the state having a population of less than 5,000, then provides that such court shall be a court of record, and…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Lamb & TynerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Lennox v. Housing AuthorityNebraska Supreme Court · 1940
- Williams v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- State ex rel. Nelson v. ButlerNebraska Supreme Court · 1945
- Elwell v. ComstockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.