State Ex Rel. Perkins v. Utecht
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 1963, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Ex Rel. Becker v. Tahash (Minn. 1963)
- State Ex Rel. Campbell v. Tahash (Minn. 1961)
- State Ex Rel. Adams v. Jackson (Minn. 1959)
- Dixon v. Swenson (Minn. 1954)
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
Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court for Washington county denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that all questions raised by the present petition were decided and determined against petitioner by this court in State ex rel. Perkins v. Utecht, 231 Minn. 339, 43 N. W. (2d) 258, and that the petition is sham and frivolous and shows on its face that it has no merit.
We considered all the questions raised by the present petition in our former opinion. There, we affirmed a previous order of *117 the Washington county district court denying a similar petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner with that court on March 18, 1950, and held that petitioner was not illegally detained by respondent. The matter is here again on the same set of material facts. No new question of substance is raised by the present petition. Under the rule in this state, the doctrine of res judicata applies. Guy v. Utecht, 229 Minn. 58, 38 N. W. (2d) 59, certiorari denied, 338 U. S. 905, 70 S. Ct. 307, 94 L. ed. 557; State ex rel. DuFault v. Utecht, 220 Minn. 431, 19 N. W. (2d) 706, 161 A. L. R. 1316; see, State ex rel. Pinkerman v. Utecht, 231 Minn. 331, 43 N. W. (2d) 97.
Attached to and made a part of the present petition are the warrant of commitment, the minutes of conviction, and the sentence and judgment imposed upon petitioner. The petition is sham and frivolous and shows on its face that it is without merit. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore granted. Johnson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 68 Minn. 408, 71 N. W. 619; Kennedy v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 100 Minn. 144, 110 N. W. 624; Minneapolis Holding Co. v. Matchan, 174 Minn. 401, 219 N. W. 457; Callaghan v. Union Pacific R. Co. 148 Minn. 482, 182 N. W. 1004. See, Chisholm Water Supply Co. v. City of Chisholm, 205 Minn. 617, 287 N. W. 493.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.