Hall v. Board of County Commissioners
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 1956, 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
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Certain School Districts, Freeborn County (Minn. 1956)
- Thorland v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 44 (Minn. 1956)
- Paetzel v. Clift (Minn. 1951)
- Independent School District No. 47 v. Meeker County (Minn. 1919)
- In re Dissolution of Independent School District No. 27 (Minn. 1953)
- In re Appeal of Consolidated School District No. 16 (Minn. 1930)
- Rolf v. Town of Hancock (Minn. 1926)
- Independent School Distbict No. 36 v. Independent School Distbict No. 68 (Minn. 1925)
- Severts v. County of Yellow Medicine (Minn. 1921)
- Sartell v. County of Benton (Minn. 1921)
- Consolidated School District No. 24 v. Stark (Minn. 1920)
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 a proceeding under G. S. 1913, § 2677, to enlarge the independent school district of Granite Falls in Yellow Medicine county by adding territory in Chippewa county. The county board of Yellow 'Medicine granted the petition and the county board of Chippewa denied it. On appeal to the district court, pursuant to G. S. 1913, § 2676, the action of the Chippewa county board was sustained and judgment was rendered accordingly. This appeal followed.
1. There is cast upon the county board the duty of determining the propriety of an enlargement of a school district. It exercises its discretion. Its discretion is legislative, not judicial. On appeal to the district court its determination is not reviewable as a judicial question nor is there a trial de novo of the legislative question committed to it. The inquiry is whether the determination of the county board was arbitrary or fraudulent or oppressive or in unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected or such as to work manifest injustice. Counsel concede such to be the law and the authorities are in entire unanimity. Froehling v. Independent School District No. 20 of St. James, supra, page 71, 167 N. W. 108; Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439, 161 N. W. 152; School District No. 36 v. School District No. 31, 134 Minn. 82, 158 N. W. 729; Sorknes v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Lac qui Parle County, 131 Minn. 79, 154 N. W. 669; Schweigert v. Abbott, 122 Minn. 383, 142 N. W. 723. And see Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458, 166 N. W. 1077, and cases cited; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474, 153 N. W. 869, 1095, and cases cited.
2. The court finds that the county board "when rejecting said petition did not proceed arbitrarily, fraudulently nor oppressively without keeping the best interests of the territory affected in view, neither did their action in rejecting said petition in any manner work manifest injustice.” The question is whether the finding is sustained.
That portion of the city of Granite Falls west of the Minnesota river is in Yellow Medicine county and the portion east of the river is in Chippewa county. The Independent School District of Granite Falls includes the portion of the city west of the river. It was the purpose of the proceeding to annex the portion of the city east of the river and
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.