State Ex Rel. v. City Council of Benson
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 1951, 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.
- City of Englewood v. Daily (Colo. 1965)
- State Ex Rel. Huntley School District No. 4 JT. v. Schweickhard (Minn. 1951)
- State v. Walso (Minn. 1936)
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 relator seeks on writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the city council in annexing territory to the municipality under G. S. 1923, § 1843. He appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to an order dismissing the writ.
Official acts that are purely legislative in their nature cannot be reviewed by certiorari. The fact that an officer dr board in the performance of duty has to ascertain certain facts and, in doing so, de-terminé what the law is, does not of itself render the acts judicial. In order to be judicial the acts must affect the rights or property of a person in a manner analogous to that in which they are affected by proceedings in court. When the proceeding is judicial, no right of appeal being given, certiorari will lie.
In this case it is said that the council had to decide: (1) Whether the petition was signed by a majority of the property owners; and (2) whether the land sought to be annexed abutted the city. It is asserted that these acts are judicial. We think not. This case is analogous to the county commissioners forming a new school district or to proceedings under L. 1895, p. 696, c. 298. It cannot be reviewed by certiorari. In re Petition of Johnson, 150 Minn. 524, 184 N. W. 214; Lemont v. Dodge, 39 Minn. 385, 40 N. W. 359; State v. Clough, 64 Minn. 378, 67 N. W. 202. Perhaps the remedy is by quo war-ranto. State v. Kinney, 146 Minn. 311, 178 N. W. 815; Dun. Dig. § 8064; State v. Board, 66 Minn. 519, 68 N. W. 767, 69 N. W. 925, 73 N. W. 631, 35 L. R. A. 745.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.