In re Election Contest of Christian
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 1932, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Engelbert v. Tuttle (Minn. 1932)
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
Appeal from an order decreeing the forfeiture of the office of county commissioner of the Fourth commissioner district of Anoka county and declaring the office vacant.
Edward Sullivan and E. M. Christian were the candidates for this office at the election on November 2, 1926. Mr. Sullivan was elected by 16 votes. Mr. Christian contests his election.
On the election day in the town of Fridley in said district Mr. Sullivan, during the time the polls were open, circulated and distributed his campaign cards in furtherance of and in solicitation and in support of his candidacy. The cards bore his picture, his name as such candidate, the date of election, a short statement of facts pertinent to his candidacy and an expression of appreciation of the *466 support of the voters. This was done knowingly and intentionally and in the active conduct of Ms campaign.
Mr. Sullivan’s conduct makes Mm guilty of a misdemeanor. G. S. 1923, § 551 (2). The doing of a thing so forbidden by law is a material violation of the corrupt practice law. Such conduct is likely to influence voters. That is the purpose for which it is done. It was clearly both deliberate and serious. Such conduct gives ground for a contest. G. S. 1923, § 570; Saari v. Gleason, 126 Minn. 378, 148 N. W. 293; Olsen v. Billberg, 129 Minn. 160, 151 N. W. 550. Such conduct cannot be regarded as trivial, unimportant or limited in character within the meaning of G. S. 1923, § 571. Miller v. Maier, 136 Minn. 231, 161 N. W. 513, 2 A. L. R. 399; Hawley v. Wallace, 137 Minn. 183, 163 N. W. 127.
It would have been a better practice to have appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to the order. But we construe this order, which says nothing about the entry of judgment, as intended for a final order which in effect is a judgment.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.