Slowinski v. Ilse
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 1978, 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.
- Matter of Contest of General Election (Minn. 1978)
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
Appellant, Clark A. Ese, contests the election of respondent, Charles A. Slowinski,
We hold that the appeal must be dismissed because findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders for judgment are not appealable orders.
“When an appeal is taken to the supreme court from the determination of the district court in any contest instituted under this chapter, the party appealing shall file in the district court a bond in such sum, not less than $500, and with such sureties, as shall be approved by the judge, conditioned for the payment of all costs incurred by the respondent in case appellant fails on his appeal. The notice of appeal shall be served and filed no later than ten days in case of a general election and no later than five days in case of a primary election after the entry of the determination of the district court in the contest. The return of such appeal shall be made, certified, and filed in the supreme court as soon as practicable and in any event within 15 days after service of notice of appeal. The appeal may be brought on for hearing in the court at any time when it is in session, upon such notice from either party, as the court may determine which notice may be served during term time or in vacation; and it may be heard and determined summarily by the court.”
This construction comport's with actual practice in prior election contest cases and with the provision of § 209.04 that “[t]he matter shall be tried by the court in the manner provided for the trial of civil actions so far as practicable.” The order for judgment filed by the district court itself disclosed that entry of judgment was contemplated as the final determination.
Appeal dismissed.
The designation of Slowinski as “contestant” and Ilse as “contestee” results from the initiation of the contest by Slowinski following the original certification of the election results by the county canvassing board, which showed Ilse to be the apparent winner by a margin of 74 votes. However, a recount of votes in the Town of Stuntz reversed the result and showed Slowinski the winner by a margin of 73 votes. Slowinski thereupon abandoned his contest and Ilse continued the proceedings in the posture of contestant.
Neither party pressed for an earlier setting of the case in this court.
This prior order related to a part of the contest and is incorporated in the order of February 23, 1967.
See, Minn. St. 605.09(a) and (b); Cunningham, Appealable Orders in Minnesota, 37 Minn. L. Rev. 309, 315, 331 to 332, 351 to 359; Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Carlton County, 275 Minn. 101, 102 (footnote 1), 145 N. W. (2d) 68, 70 (footnote 1); Shema v. Thorpe Bros. 238 Minn. 470, 57 N. W. (2d) 157.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.