DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 119 N.W. 408.

30 citing documents.

  • UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    A political question presents “a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity” or a matter that “has been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act.” In re McConaughy, 119 N.W. 408, 417 (Minn. 1909).
  • Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    A political question presents “a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity” or a matter that “has been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act.” 5 (Minn. 1909).
  • St. Cloud Educational Rights Advocacy Council, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Separation-of-powers 12 principles preclude the judiciary from resolving political questions, which involve matters “to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity” or which “ha[ve] been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act.”
  • Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    " d at 8 (quoting In re McConaughy , 106 Minn. 392 , 119 N.W.
  • Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
  • Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
    In re McConaughy , 106 Minn. 392 , 119 N.W.
  • Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton 903 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2017
  • Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton 903 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2017
    See In re McConaughy, 106 Minn. 392 , 119 N.W.
  • Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
  • Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
    Similarly, nothing in McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , 119 N.W.
  • Cruz-Guzman v. State 892 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Cruz-Guzman v. State 892 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “What is generally meant, when it is said that a question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act.” In re McConaughy, 106 Minn. 392, 415 , 119 N.W.
  • League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
  • League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
    at 332 (citing McConaughy v. Sec’y of State, 106 Minn. 392 , 119 N.W.
  • Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
  • Farrington v. City of Richfield 488 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Farrington v. City of Richfield 488 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    While there is some merit to respondents’ claim that the city council’s decision on whom to appoint to the city council is a political question which this court has no jurisdiction to decide, see In re McConaughy, 106 Minn. 392, 415 , 119 N.W.
  • Hassler v. Engberg 48 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1951
  • Hassler v. Engberg 48 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1951
    This amendment, quite commonly referred to as the “wide open tax amendment,” was declared legally adopted by the supreme court in McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , .
  • Rockne v. Olson 254 N.W. 5 Minn. 1934
  • Rockne v. Olson 254 N.W. 5 Minn. 1934
    McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , ; Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Winget v. Holm 244 N.W. 331 Minn. 1932
  • Winget v. Holm 244 N.W. 331 Minn. 1932
    It must be conceded settled by *81 McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , , that courts have jurisdiction to determine whether an amendment to the constitution proposed by the legislature and submitted to the electors was proposed, submitted, and ratified conformably to the mandate of the constitution so as to become a part thereof.
  • Scow v. Gutches 152 N.W. 639 Minn. 1915
  • Scow v. Gutches 152 N.W. 639 Minn. 1915
    In McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , , it *305 is stated on page 419: “It is settled law that the decisions of election officers and canvassing boards are not conclusive, and that the final decision must rest with the courts, unless the law declares that decisions of the board shall be-final.” In the very case upon which appellant relies
  • State ex rel. Peacock v. Village Council of Osakis 128 N.W. 295 Minn. 1910
  • State ex rel. Peacock v. Village Council of Osakis 128 N.W. 295 Minn. 1910
    McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , ; State v. Churchill, 15 Minn. *369 369 (455).
  • Cooke v. Iverson 122 N.W. 251 Minn. 1909
  • Cooke v. Iverson 122 N.W. 251 Minn. 1909
    Such a proposition is an unthinkable one; for, as said by this court in McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392, 416 , : “Every officer under a constitutional government must act according to law and subject to its restrictions, and every departure therefrom or disregard thereof must subject him to the restraining and controlling power of the people, acting through the agency of the judiciary; for it must be remem