Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Childs v. Sutton, 65 N.W. 262.

26 citing documents.

State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
Childs v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 150 , 65 N.W.
Butler Taconite v. Roemer 282 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1979
Butler Taconite v. Roemer 282 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1979
“Where the language of the constitution is plain, we are not permitted to indulge in speculation concerning its meaning, nor whether it is the embodiment of great wisdom.” State ex rel v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 149 , 65 N.W.
McCutcheon v. City of St. Paul 216 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1974
McCutcheon v. City of St. Paul 216 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1974
Childs v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , this court implicitly held that the position of boiler inspector for the Fourth Congressional District was an “office” which, as “one of great public importance and responsibility,” could not be occupied by a state legislator; but in Tillquist v. State Dept. of Labor & Industry, 216 Minn. 20
Dickinson v. Holm 65 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1954
Dickinson v. Holm 65 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1954
Childs v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , , 30 L. R. A. 630, 56 A. S. R. 459, Sutton, a state representative elected for the present constitutional term of two years contended that by *37 resigning Ms legislative position before accepting another state office, he did not violate the first part of art. 4, § 9, which prohibits a legislator from h
State Ex Rel. Gardner v. Holm 62 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1954
State Ex Rel. Gardner v. Holm 62 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1954
Childs v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 149 , , 30 L. R. A. 630, we said: “* * Where the language of the constitution is plain, we are not permitted to indulge in speculation concerning its meaning, nor whether it is the embodiment of great wisdom.
Miller v. Holm 14 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1944
Miller v. Holm 14 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1944
Childs v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , 65 N.W.
State Ex Rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase 220 N.W. 951 Minn. 1928
State Ex Rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase 220 N.W. 951 Minn. 1928
Childs v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 150 , , 30 L. R. A. 630, 56 A. S. R. 459, quoting from Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 9, 97 .
State ex rel. Mathews v. Houdersheldt 186 N.W. 234 Minn. 1922
State ex rel. Mathews v. Houdersheldt 186 N.W. 234 Minn. 1922
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , , 30 L. R. A. 630, 56 Am.
Cooke v. Iverson 122 N.W. 251 Minn. 1909
Cooke v. Iverson 122 N.W. 251 Minn. 1909
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , , 30 L. R. A. 630, 56 Am.
State v. Evans 108 N.W. 958 Minn. 1906
State v. Evans 108 N.W. 958 Minn. 1906
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 152 , , 30 L. R. A. 630, 56 Am.
Lindberg v. Johnson 101 N.W. 74 Minn. 1904
Lindberg v. Johnson 101 N.W. 74 Minn. 1904
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , .
Davis v. Hugo 83 N.W. 984 Minn. 1900
Davis v. Hugo 83 N.W. 984 Minn. 1900
The rule of construction which is applicable here is clearly stated in the case of Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 9 , quoted in State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , , and will bear repetition, in these words: “If * * * the words embody a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity, and no contradiction between different parts of the same writing, then that meaning apparent upon the face of the instrument is the one which alone we are at liberty to say was intende
State ex rel. Dowdall v. Dahl 71 N.W. 910 Minn. 1897
State ex rel. Dowdall v. Dahl 71 N.W. 910 Minn. 1897
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 , .