State ex rel. Getchell v. O'connor
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Writ of quo warranto issued from the supreme court requiring defendant to show by what warrant he assumed to act as chief of police of the city of St. Paul and why relator should not be adjudged entitled to said office. Laws 1895, c. 4, and Laws 1897, c. 280, being section 36 of article 4 of the constitution, apply to all the cities and villages of the state. This amendment to the constitution is a close copy of those of Missouri, California and Washington. Const.
Read the full summary
Writ of quo warranto issued from the supreme court requiring defendant to show by what warrant he assumed to act as chief of police of the city of St. Paul and why relator should not be adjudged entitled to said office. Laws 1895, c. 4, and Laws 1897, c. 280, being section 36 of article 4 of the constitution, apply to all the cities and villages of the state. This amendment to the constitution is a close copy of those of Missouri, California and Washington. Const. (Cal.) art. 11, § 8; Const. (Mo.) art. 9, § 16; Const. (Wash.) art. 11, § 10. In order that the power may be exercised, it is…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Quo warranto proceedings to determine the right of respondent to the office of chief of police of the city of St. Paul.
The ifnportant question in the case is the constitutionality of Laws 1899, c. 351, the same being an „act to authorize cities and villages to frame their own charters. Pursuant to this act due proceedings were had by the city of St. Paul, and a charter framed and adopted as provided thereby, under the provisions of which respondent was appointed chief of police. Relator held the office at the time of the adoption of the new charter and the appointment of respondent, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- United States v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
- United States v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Clark v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Julius v. CallahanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Keenan v. PriceIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- Graham v. JonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1941
- Lackey v. State Ex Rel. GrantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Grant v. BerrisfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Schigley v. City of WasecaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.