Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pennington v. Hare, 62 N.W. 116.

50 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
(Citing Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 150 , 62 N.W.
In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
(Citing Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 150 , 62 N.W.
Babnew v. Linneman 740 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
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.
Ganske v. Independent School District No. 84 136 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1965
Ganske v. Independent School District No. 84 136 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1965
2 It seems clear that this testimony was inadmissible under our rule in Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 148 , .
Sperl v. Wegwerth 120 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1963
Sperl v. Wegwerth 120 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1963
In Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 149 , , we said: “* * * any mark, however crude and imperfect in form, if it is apparent that it was honestly intended as a cross mark, and for nothing else, must be given effect as such; * * *."
Fitzgerald v. Morlock 120 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1963
Fitzgerald v. Morlock 120 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1963
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , .
Johnson v. Swenson 119 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1963
Johnson v. Swenson 119 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1963
* * * With the construction contended for the minority party in any precinct could disfranchise every voter in it, and the fewer in numbers of such party the easier total disfranchisement could be accomplished.” That decision was followed in Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , .
State ex rel. Klitzke v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 88 61 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1953
State ex rel. Klitzke v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 88 61 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1953
No. 68, supra; Clayton v. Prince, 129 Minn. 118 , ; McEwen v. Prince, 125 Minn. 417 , ; Backus v. City of Virginia, 123 Minn. 48 , ; Schweigert v. Abbott, 122 Minn. 383 , ; Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Edson v. Child, 18 Minn. 43 (64); Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 81 (107).
Pye v. Hanzel 273 N.W. 611 Minn. 1937
Pye v. Hanzel 273 N.W. 611 Minn. 1937
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Elwell v. Comstock, 99 Minn. 261 , , 7 L.R.A.(N.S.)
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.
Ferguson v. City of Morris 267 N.W. 254 Minn. 1936
Ferguson v. City of Morris 267 N.W. 254 Minn. 1936
Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 81 (107); Edson v. Child, 18 Minn. 43 (64); Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Backus v. City of Virginia, 123 Minn. 48 , ; McEwen v. Prince, 125 Minn. 417 , ; Clayton v. Prince, 129 Minn. 118 , , Ann. Cas.
Godward v. City of Minneapolis 250 N.W. 719 Minn. 1933
Godward v. City of Minneapolis 250 N.W. 719 Minn. 1933
The court held that the initialed ballots were properly excluded from the total vote under the application of the doctrine announced in Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , *Page 54 62 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
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , .
In Re Election Contest Itasca County 228 N.W. 155 Minn. 1929
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , 62 N.W.
Hunt v. Campbell 169 P. 596 Ariz. 1917
Doepke v. King 156 N.W. 125 Minn. 1916
Doepke v. King 156 N.W. 125 Minn. 1916
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Elwell v. Comstock, 99 Minn. 261 , , 7 L.R.A.
Johnson v. Slapp 148 N.W. 593 Minn. 1914
Johnson v. Slapp 148 N.W. 593 Minn. 1914
Counsel cite Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 149 , , and Erickson v. Paulson, 111 Minn. 337 , , in support of their contention that tbe ballot should not be counted for Slapp.
McEwen v. Prince 147 N.W. 275 Minn. 1914
McEwen v. Prince 147 N.W. 275 Minn. 1914
389; Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Hankey v. Bowman, 82 Minn. 328 , ; Truelsen v. Hugo, 87 Minn. 139 , ; State v. Falk, 89 Minn. 269 , .
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
And see Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Parker v. Orr, 158 Ill.
Elwell v. Comstock 109 N.W. 698 Minn. 1906
Elwell v. Comstock 109 N.W. 698 Minn. 1906
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 150 , .
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 argued that under the rules laid down in Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , , and Truelsen v. Hugo, supra, both of these ballots should have been counted for him.
Hopkins v. City of Duluth 83 N.W. 536 Minn. 1900
Hopkins v. City of Duluth 83 N.W. 536 Minn. 1900
Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , ; Truelsen v. Hugo, supra, page 73.
Truelsen v. Hugo 83 N.W. 500 Minn. 1900
Truelsen v. Hugo 83 N.W. 500 Minn. 1900
“The statute does not, however, prescribe any inflexible rule as to what shall or shall not be accepted as a cross mark, and any mark, however crude and imperfect in form, if it is apparent that it was honestly intended as a cross mark, and for nothing else, must be given effect as such.” START, C. J., in Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146 , .