State ex rel. Jack v. Schmahl
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 1975, 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
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Abrams v. Lamone (Md. 2007)
- Petition of Teigen (N.D. 1974)
- In re Candidacy of Daly (Minn. 1972)
- State v. Lindgren (Minn. 1975)
- Ditty v. Hampton (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1973)
- State Ex Rel. Chavez v. Evans (N.M. 1968)
- State Ex Rel. Boedigheimer v. Welter (Minn. 1940)
- State Ex Rel. Froehlich v. Ries (Minn. 1926)
- People v. La Barre (Cal. 1924)
- Heard v. Moore (Tenn. 1926)
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
It has been duly made to appear that on April 24, 1914, respondent J. T. Mider, a layman, for the purpose of having his name placed on the nonpartisan primary ballot as a candidate for the office of judge of the district court of our Nineteenth judicial district, at the primary election to be held on June 16 next, filed with the secretary of state an affidavit in this regard in the form prescribed by G. S. 1913, § 339, and paid the requisite fee. This statute authorized only
“The judges of the supreme and district courts shall be men learned in the law.”
Beyond question the framers of the Constitution used the last five words quoted in the sense of attorneys at law, and this view has since been uniformly accepted. The few authorities on the subject are to the same effect. See Jamieson v. Wiggin, 12 S. D. 16; Freiler v. Schuylkill County, 46 Pa. Superior Ct. 58. The matter does not merit further discussion.
It is therefore ordered that respondent secretary of state refrain from certifying respondent Mider’s name to the auditors of any of the counties of said judicial district as a nominee or candidate for the office of district judge thereof to be placed upon the official or general election ballot to be used at the next general election to be held November 3, 1914.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.