State ex rel. Diepenbrock v. Gates
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1959, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Ex Rel. Town of White Bear v. City of White Bear Lake (Minn. 1959)
- Cahill v. McDowell (N.D. 1918)
- Hawley v. Wallace (Minn. 1917)
- Scow v. Gutches (Minn. 1915)
- State ex rel. Jarvis v. Craig (Minn. 1907)
- State ex rel. Young v. Village of Kent (Minn. 1905)
- State ex rel. Bell v. Moriarty (Minn. 1900)
- Truelson v. City of Duluth (Minn. 1895)
- State Ex Rel. Carter v. Superior Court (Wash. 1943)
- Treat v. Morris (S.D. 1910)
- State ex rel. Love v. Cosgrave (Neb. 1909)
- State ex rel. Holbrook v. Egry (Ohio 1909)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an order to show cause why proceedings by quo warranto shall not be instituted to determine whether the relator or the respondent was elected to the office of alderman of the city of Eed Wing, at the city election, April 26,1886. The charter of the city (chapter 4, § 1; Sp. Laws 1876, c. 28, § 5, p. 97) provides that the city council shall “be the judges of the election and qualification of their own members.” The charter of the city of St. Paul contains a similar provision, and in the case of State v. Dowlan, 33 Minn. 536, (24 N. W. Rep. 188,) the judges of this court who heard the case (one of the judges being absent) were unable to agree whether this made the council the sole judge of the election of a member, so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts to try and determine the question of his election. On further considering the point, we are now agreed that such a provision, without the use of the word “sole” or “exclusive,” or some similar form of expression, to indicate an intention to shut out the jurisdiction of the courts, does not affect such jurisdiction.
We are also agreed that the provisions of chapter 1, Gen. St. 1878, providing a mode for contesting elections, apply to such a case as this, and that, unless under special and exceptional circumstances, — and none such exist in this case, — the party contesting should proceed in the manner therein prescribed, and not by quo warranto.
Order discharged.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.