Kirchoff 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 1975, 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
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Sax (Minn. 1950)
- In re Petition of Abel (Minn. 1958)
- Fairmont Real Estate & Investment Co. v. County of Martin (Minn. 1958)
- Minn. Bd. of Health v. Gov., Etc., App. Bd. (Minn. 1975)
- Minnesota State Board of Health v. Governor's Certificate of Need Appeal Board (Minn. 1975)
- State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, & Land Surveyors v. Getsug (Minn. 1971)
- Minnesota Water Resources Board v. County of Traverse (Minn. 1970)
- County School Board v. Cottonwood School District No. 41 (S.D. 1965)
- Town of Eagan, Dakota County v. Minnesota Mun. Com'n (Minn. 1964)
- In re Petition of Minneapolis Area Development Corp. (Minn. 1964)
- Re App. C/C Clerk Re Regis. Buda (Haw. 1960)
- In re the Appeal of Chung (Haw. 1960)
- Bricelyn School District No. 132 v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn. 1952)
- In re the Eligibility for Unemployment Benefits of Foy (Wash. 1941)
- Rommell v. Walsh (Conn. 1940)
- Bowles v. Dannin (R.I. 1938)
- Cozad Ditch Co. v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District (Neb. 1937)
- Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Weiss (Minn. 1934)
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 appeal is by the county board of McLeod county from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The case is that of a freeholder petitioning the county board to have his land set off from one school district and attached to another. The county board, *227 after hearing, denied the petition. The petitioner then appealed to the district court, and that court, after trial, reversed the order of the county hoard. The hoard then moved for a new trial and now appeals to this court.
The county board, prosecuting this appeal, as far as the record shows, has no interest in the litigation and is not an aggrieved party. The board is the tribunal designated by statute to hear the petition and pass upon it in the first instance. The litigants are the petitioner and the school districts affected. A court or tribunal before whom a controversy is litigated has as such no appealable interest in the matter. And, while the county board represents the county in many matters in which the county is interested, it does not appear that the county has any financial or other interest in this litigation, nor is the appeal taken by or in behalf of the county. Public boards and officers cannot appeal or sue out Avrits of error if they have no interest or are not aggrieved either in their official or individual capacity. 3 C. J. p. 658, § 528; Winne v. People, 177 Ill. 268, 52 N. E. 377; Fitch v. Hay, 112 App. Div. 736, 98 N. Y. S. 1090.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.