Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Mason

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 17, 1920No. 22,065Published

Upon the relation of William M. Nash the supreme court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the Honorable J. A. A. Burnquist, Governor of the state of Minnesota, to review his action in removing William M. Nash, county attorney of Hennepin county, from office.

1DissentQuiNN, J.

I dissent. The removal statute provides 'that the Governor may remove from office any county attorney whenever it appears to him by competent evidence that such officer has been guilty of malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of his official duties. The proceedings are judicial in their nature and may be reviewed on certiorari: First, to see whether the removing power had jurisdiction and kept within it; second, whether the charges were sufficient in law; and third, whether the evidence furnished a legal and substantial basis for the removal. State v. Common Council of City of Duluth,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hart v. Common CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  2. Thurston v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. State ex rel. Rowe v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Hawkins v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. State ex rel. Attorney General v. HastySupreme Court of Alabama · 1913

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API