Legal Opinion

Piepho v. Bruns

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 17, 2002No. C4-02-1354PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Petitioner Mark Piepho filed a petition under Minn.Stat. § 204B.44 (2000) alleging a wrongful act or omission by the respondent county auditors in their placement of candidate John Hottinger’s name on the ballot for the 2002 election. The petition was referred to a referee to take and receive evidence and make findings of fact ■ relative to petitioner’s claim that the candidate will not have resided in Legislative District 23 for six months immediately preceding the general election as required by Minn. Const, art. IV, § 6. The referee found that Hottinger established residency in…

3Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Aronovitch v. LevySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  2. Peterson v. StaffordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Fetsch v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  4. Bell v. GannawaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Moe v. AlsopSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970

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

4Cited by16 opinions

  1. Inquiry into the Conduct of KarasovSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  2. Lundquist v. LeonardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  3. Melendez v. O'CONNORSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  4. Olson v. ZEUHLKESupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  5. Studer v. KiffmeyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006

11 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