Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Town of Stuntz v. City of Chisholm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 24, 1936No. 30,809PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1 Reported in 264 N.W. 798, 266 N.W. 689. This matter is before us upon motion of the town of Stuntz for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto against the city of Chisholm and certain of its officers also named as respondents. Both the municipal corporations are in St. Louis county.

According to the proposed information, the former village of Chisholm has attempted to reincorporate as a city, a special election to pass upon that question having been held September 1, 1934, at which the proposal for reincorporation was carried. The effect of that proceeding, if legally…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lemasters v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Evens v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  3. State ex rel. Young v. Village of KentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  4. Lamoreaux v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. State Ex Rel. Peterson v. City of FraserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ames v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
  2. State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of MoundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  3. Longcor v. City of Red WingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
  4. Schaeffer v. NewberrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  5. Town of Burnsville v. City of BloomingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API