Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lauritsen v. Seward, 109 N.W. 404.

27 citing documents.

Minn. 2021
13 it lacked jurisdiction over that issue); see also In re Lauritsen , –08 (Minn. 1906) (recognizing that “a court of final resort” can provide “peremptory and prompt relief”).
Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary … 885 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2016
Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary … 885 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2016
11 jurisdiction to pass on matters affecting the senate’s action in organizing itself, and if it has such jurisdiction, should the court assert it?”); In re Lauritsen, 99 Minn. 313, 321, 109 N.W.
Page v. Carlson 488 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1992
Page v. Carlson 488 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1992
In Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , 109 N.W.
MINN. VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB v. Metro. Council 289 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1979
MINN. VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB v. Metro. Council 289 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1979
In re Lauritsen, 99 Minn. 313 , 109 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Brenner v. Hodapp 48 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Brenner v. Hodapp 48 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1951
Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , ; Merrill, Mandamus, § 62; 18 R. C. L. p. 89; 26 Cyc.
State Ex Rel. Ashcroft v. Jensen 7 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1943
State Ex Rel. McGrath v. Erickson 281 N.W. 366 Minn. 1938
State Ex Rel. McGrath v. Erickson 281 N.W. 366 Minn. 1938
Notwithstanding Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , , it may be conceded that in respect to primary election ballots courts, in Adrtue of § 316 of the statutes, may strike the name of a candidate from the ballots Avho is not a resident of the legislative election district wherein he has filed; but when it comes to inquire concerning the eligibility of o
State Ex Rel. Evens v. City of Duluth 262 N.W. 681 Minn. 1935
State Ex Rel. Evens v. City of Duluth 262 N.W. 681 Minn. 1935
Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , 326 , 109 N.W.
Lading v. City of Duluth 190 N.W. 981 Minn. 1922
Lading v. City of Duluth 190 N.W. 981 Minn. 1922
Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Dexner v. Houghton 190 N.W. 179 Minn. 1922
Dexner v. Houghton 190 N.W. 179 Minn. 1922
Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , ; Merrill, Mandamus, § 62; 18 R. C. L. p. 89; 26 Cyc.
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 175 N.W. 677 Minn. 1920
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 175 N.W. 677 Minn. 1920
Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , ; State v. Cook, 119 Minn. 407 , , Ann. Cas.
Hunt v. Hoffman 146 N.W. 733 Minn. 1914
Hunt v. Hoffman 146 N.W. 733 Minn. 1914
510 ; Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , .
State ex rel. Schwartzkopf v. City Council of Brainerd 141 N.W. 97 Minn. 1913
State ex rel. Schwartzkopf v. City Council of Brainerd 141 N.W. 97 Minn. 1913
*187 Nevertheless, as declared in Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313, 824 , , in defining the function of the writ of mandamus at the time of the adoption of our Constitution: “It issued only to command and compel the performance of clearly defined duties which were already prescribed by law.
State ex rel. Olson v. Scott 117 N.W. 1044 Minn. 1908
State ex rel. Olson v. Scott 117 N.W. 1044 Minn. 1908
Lauritsen v. Seward, 99 Minn. 313 , ; Whaley v. Bayer, 99 Minn. 397 , , 820.
Whaley v. Bayer 109 N.W. 820 Minn. 1906
In Lauritsen v. Seward, supra, p. 313, , the nature of the proceedings authorized by these two sections was considered and it was held that section 202 provides for a proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel the .performance of existing legal duties, which may be instituted in the supreme court or in the district court, but that the district courts o