State ex rel. Eaton 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 1950, 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.
- U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (Supreme Court of the United States 1995)
- Donald James Gralike v. Rebecca M. Cook (8th Cir. 1999)
- Shub v. Simpson (Md. 1950)
- Conrad Joyner v. Rose Mofford, Secretary of State, State of Arizona Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General, State of Arizona (9th Cir. 1983)
- Holley v. Adams (Fla. 1970)
- State Ex Rel. Chavez v. Evans (N.M. 1968)
- State Ex Rel. Handley v. SUP. CT. OF MAR. CO., ETC. (Ind. 1958)
- Danielson v. Fitzsimmons (Minn. 1950)
- State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Crane (Wyo. 1948)
- Stockton v. McFarland (Ariz. 1940)
- State Ex Rel. Sundfor v. Thorson (N.D. 1942)
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
Proceedings to restrain the secretary of state from placing upon the nominating election ballot for the June, 1918, primary election the name of James A. Peterson as a candidate for United States senator, on the ground that since the filing of his affidavit as such candidate he was convicted of a felony in the Federal court, sitting in this state, and is now under sentence by the judgment of that court to imprison-
The proceedings must be dismissed. The office of United States senator is a Federal office created by the Federal Constitntion. The qualifications of those aspiring to or holding the position are also prescribed by the Federal Constitution, which the state is without authority to modify or enlarge in any way; and the provisions of the state Constitution imposing restrictions upon the right of suffrage, and upon the right to hold public office, can have no application to the office of United States senator. The method of election to such office is also prescribed by Federal law, and- the mere fact that the state election machinery is adopted for that purpose, does not render applicable to a particular candidate the general disqualifications for public office found in the state Constitution. Peterson is not disqualified under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
Proceedings dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.