Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Truelsen v. Hugo, 83 N.W. 500.

37 citing documents.

In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
116, 118 (1895); Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73, 79 , 83 N.W.
In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
116, 118 (1895); Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73, 79 , 83 N.W.
Bell v. Gannaway 227 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1975
Bell v. Gannaway 227 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1975
* * * Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 150 , ; Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. American Federation, Etc. v. Hanson 38 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1949
Murray v. Floyd 11 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1943
Overruled Murray v. Floyd 11 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1943
In cases like Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , , and Frajola v. Zanna, 193 Minn. 48 , , we held that an indecent or impertinent remark was not a distinguishing mark, upon the theory that the same obviously are not made to identify the ballot.
Pye v. Hanzel 273 N.W. 611 Minn. 1937
Pye v. Hanzel 273 N.W. 611 Minn. 1937
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; Elwell v. Comstock, 99 Minn. 261 , , 7 L.R.A.
Wichelmann v. City of Glencoe 273 N.W. 638 Minn. 1937
Wichelmann v. City of Glencoe 273 N.W. 638 Minn. 1937
1932, 1934) § 2915; Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 150 , ; Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; State ex rel.
Frajola v. Zanna 257 N.W. 660 Minn. 1934
Frajola v. Zanna 257 N.W. 660 Minn. 1934
In Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , , there was an expression of ill will after the name of the contestant.
Godward v. City of Minneapolis 250 N.W. 719 Minn. 1933
Godward v. City of Minneapolis 250 N.W. 719 Minn. 1933
116 , and Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , 83 N.W.
McVeigh v. Spang 228 N.W. 155 Minn. 1929
In Re Election Contest Itasca County 228 N.W. 155 Minn. 1929
McVeigh v. Spang 228 N.W. 155 Minn. 1929
Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; Lannon v. Ring, 107 Minn. 453 , ; Doepke v. King, 132 Minn. 290 , .
In Re Election Contest Itasca County 228 N.W. 155 Minn. 1929
Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , 83 N.W.
Doepke v. King 156 N.W. 125 Minn. 1916
Doepke v. King 156 N.W. 125 Minn. 1916
270; Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , .
Schultz v. Shelp 155 N.W. 97 Minn. 1915
Schultz v. Shelp 155 N.W. 97 Minn. 1915
Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , .
Nelson v. McBride 135 N.W. 1002 Minn. 1912
Nelson v. McBride 135 N.W. 1002 Minn. 1912
Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; Hughes v. Upson, 84 Minn. 85 , ; Bloedel v. Cromwell, 104 Minn. 487 , .
Erickson v. Paulson 126 N.W. 1097 Minn. 1910
Erickson v. Paulson 126 N.W. 1097 Minn. 1910
Upon the subject of intention, generally, see Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; Bloedel v. Cromwell, 104 Minn. 487 , .
Bloedel v. Cromwell 116 N.W. 947 Minn. 1908
Bloedel v. Cromwell 116 N.W. 947 Minn. 1908
Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , ; cf. Hughes v. Upson, 84 Minn. 85, 89 , .
Elwell v. Comstock 109 N.W. 698 Minn. 1906
Elwell v. Comstock 109 N.W. 698 Minn. 1906
contested ballots, which the trial court counted, had opposite the name of one of the candidates for mayor the word “nit.” Upon another were written, after the names of the candidates for aider-man, the words, “May the best man win.” It is clearly apparent that these ballots were not so labeled for the purpose of identification, and they were properly counted, within the rule of Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , .
Truelsen v. Hugo 91 N.W. 434 Minn. 1902
Truelsen v. Hugo 91 N.W. 434 Minn. 1902
With one exception, all of the ballots which in any way affect the result were correctly counted, within the rule adopted in Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , , and Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , .
Hughes v. Upson 86 N.W. 782 Minn. 1901
Hughes v. Upson 86 N.W. 782 Minn. 1901
It is a case where the intention cannot be safely ascertained by an inspection of the ballot, and therefore the rule as to intent laid down in Truelsen v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 73 , , is not relevant.