Blake v. Hogan
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 1917, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dunagan v. Town of Red Rock (Okla. 1916)
- Berg v. Veit (Minn. 1917)
- Florala Saw Mill Co. v. Smith (Fla. 1908)
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
To succeed in this contest on the grounds taken by counsel for contestant in the court below and also in this court, it wias incumbent upon him to show upon the trial that of the votes cast and counted for the contestee, respondent here, in the town of Mounds View, forty-two were unlawfully and illegally cast and counted. The proofs must have been of such weight and character as to have justified the trial court in deducting forty-two from the total number of votes received by the contestee, as that number was finally determined upon on an inspection and examination of the ballots involved, in accordance with the provisions of Laws 1891, ch. 4, § 96. Upon a perusal of the testimony, we are satisfied that it failed in this respect, and that the proceeding was properly dismissed by the court below.
The contestant attempted to show that forty-six of the votes cast and counted in the town before mentioned for the contestee were unlawfully and illegally so cast and counted. His counsel really admits that as to three of these the proof was short, and, upon a careful perusal of the testimony — especially the cross-examination — of the only witness by whom he attempted to prove that the electors numbered 8, 10, 12, 14, 36, 38, 39, 40 and 44 in the list found in his brief (9 in all) had voted for the contestee, we are constrained to hold it too indefinite and unsatisfactory for the purpose sought. These persons were all qualified electors, and to deprive them of the right to have their ballots counted, and at the same time to charge each vote cast by them to the contestee, the result being to change his apparent plurality of forty-one to a plurality of one for the contestant, the testimony should be fairly clear and convincing; and, as before remarked, it is not. The proof as to whom two or three or other electors voted for of the forty-six before mentioned is rather vague, but further discussion is unnecessary.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 58 N. W. 867.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.