State ex rel. Cowden v. Miller
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 1925, 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
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Shaw v. City Council (Iowa 1905)
- State Ex Rel. Meehan v. Empie (Minn. 1925)
- State ex rel. Boyd v. Matson (Minn. 1923)
- Goodrich v. Mitchell (Kan. 1904)
- State ex rel. Mortensen v. Copeland (Minn. 1898)
- Mayor of Lynn v. Commissioner of Civil Service (Mass. 1929)
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
The only question raised on this appeal is the constitutionality of Laws 1887, c. 149 (G. S. 1894, § 8041), which provides: “That in every public department and upon all the public works of the state of Minnesota, and the counties, towns, cities and villages thereof, honorably discharged Union soldiers and sailors, who-are properly qualified, shall be preferred for appointment and employment,” etc. The county attorney states that he was directed by the county board to take this appeal in order to get the opinion of this court as to the constitutionality of this act, but he suggests no reason why the act is unconstitutional. On the contrary, he admits in his brief that similar statutes have been held valid in other states. No provision of the constitution occurs to us with which the-act conflicts. We therefore affirm the action of the trial court in holding the act constitutional.
Other questions discussed by counsel for the respondent, as to the-construction of the act and as to the remedy in case of a refusal to comply with its provisions, not being raised by the appellants,, are not considered.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.