State Ex Rel. Michie v. Walleen
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 1987, 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
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Central Specialties, Inc. v. Jonathan Large (8th Cir. 2021)
- Holmes v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF WABASHA CTY. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Bailey v. City of Albert Lea (Minn. 1971)
- State Ex Rel. Stubben v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn. 1966)
- State Ex Rel. Sprague v. Heise (Minn. 1954)
- Tusant v. City of Des Moines (Iowa 1941)
- Longpre v. Schmele (S.D. 1935)
- Christy v. Oakland Title Insurance & Guaranty Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
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
Relator appealed from a judgment discharging an alternative writ of mandamus.
Relator is an honorably discharged soldier of the world war. He was the county engineer of Chippewa county and claims to have been discharged Avithout a hearing in Adulation of the soldiers preference employment act, G. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) §§ 4368, 4369. He seeks compulsory reinstatement.
The office of county engineer was created by L. 1921, p. 406, c. 323, § 29. The statute provides that he shall have charge of the highway Avork of the county and the forces employed thereon; that he be paid the same as the “other county officers”; that he give a $3,000 bond to be approved in the same manner as “bonds of other county officers.” His work requires technical, professional training, and his competency must first be approved by the commissioner of highways. He is the highest authority in the county as to his official duties; all road work in the county must be done under Ms supervision ; the success of his department depends upon Ms engineering technique. The employes in Ms department Avork under his directions. Road builders and contractors must meet his requirements. He is an official whose duties are fixed by law. He is the head of Ms department. This being true, and as we construe the soldiers preference statute, it is Avithout application. State ex rel. McOsker v. City of Minneapolis, 167 Minn. 240, 208 N. W. 1005; In re Christey, 211 N. Y. 333, 105 N. E. 419; People ex rel. Jacobus v. Van Wyck, 157 N. Y. 495, 52 N. E. 559.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.