Cited by

Hardy v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , .

In re Petition of Johnson, 150 Minn. 524 , ; Lemont v. Dodge, 39 Minn. 385 , ; State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , .

State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , ; State v. Burnquist, 146 Minn. 460 , .

694 ; Christlieb v. County of Hennepin, 41 Minn. 142 , ; State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , .

This is the necessary result of State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , , where, under a different but similar statute, it was sought to review by certiorari the proceedings before the Governor, secretary of state and state auditor in enlarging an organized county by attaching thereto adjoining territory.

See State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , Steenerson v. Great Northern Ry.

State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378, 380 , .

t reflection and further examination only confirm us in the opinion that both on principle and considerations of public policy we are right in confining the office of the writ, in the latter class of cases, *245 to acts that are strictly judicial or quasi judicial in their nature.” Mitchell, J., in Moede v. County of Stearns, 43 Minn. 312 , , and cases therein cited; State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , .

In State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , , an attempt was made to review by certiorari the proceedings of the governor, secretary of state, and state auditor under Laws 1895, p. 696, c. 298, which provided for the *361 enlargement of organized counties.

In State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , , it was stated that to render the proceedings of special tribunals, commissioners, or ministerial officers judicial in their nature, they must affect the rights and property of a citizen in a manner analogous to that in which such rights are affected by the proceedings of courts acting judicially.

State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , .

See State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378 , .