Minnesota Supreme Court, 1937

State Ex Rel. Nielsen v. Gibbons

State Ex Rel. Nielsen v. Gibbons
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 19, 1937 · No. 31 · Stone
271 N.W. 873; 199 Minn. 445; 1937 Minn. LEXIS 688 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

Daniel J. Hollihan , for relator. M.F. Kinkead , County Attorney, and Frank Drill , for respondent.

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 1945, 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

State Ex Rel. Nielsen v. Gibbons

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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

Stone, Justice.

Convicted, by order, of contempt for failure to pay stated alimony and in consequence subjected to imprisonment, relator has procured a writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriff of Ramsey county, on whose return the matter has been submitted.

The one claim for relator is that in the district court there was an erroneous decision of the issue whether relator Avas or was not able to pay some alimony. That is enough to show that the Avrit should be discharged, for the simple and sufficient reason that a writ of habeas corpus may not be misused as substitute for writ of error or appeal, that is, as cover for collateral attack on the judgment of conviction. State ex rel. Newman v. Wall, 189 Minn. 265, 249 N. W. 37. For additional cases, see 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. & Supps. 1932, 1934) § 4129. Cases in the category of Laff v. Laff, 161 Minn. 122, 200 N. W. 936, where the attack upon the conviction of contempt was by appeal and therefore direct and not collateral, are for that reason not in point.

Writ discharged.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.