State ex rel. Eaton v. Schmahl, 167 N.W. 481 (Minn. 1918). · Go Syfert
State ex rel. Eaton v. Schmahl, 167 N.W. 481 (Minn. 1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“tjhese provisions, as they require qualifications which the constitution does not, may possibly be found to be nugatory”
32 citation events across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (scotus, 1995-05-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1940 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1940 1983 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (2×)
SCOTUS · 1995 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
tjhese provisions, as they require qualifications which the constitution does not, may possibly be found to be nugatory
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE EX REL. LEO K. EATON
v.
JULIES A. SCHMAHL
No. 20,999.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 17, 1918.
167 N.W. 481
Jamison, Swan, Stinchfield é MacTcall, for relator., Frederic A. Pilce, for respondent.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: #11,253 of 633,719
Citer courts: Supreme Court (2)
Per Curiam.

Proceedings to restrain the secretary of state from placing upon the nominating election ballot for the June, 1918, primary election the name of James A. Peterson as a candidate for United States senator, on the ground that since the filing of his affidavit as such candidate he was convicted of a felony in the Federal court, sitting in this state, and is now under sentence by the judgment of that court to imprison-[*220] meat for a term of years, and is therefore ineligible to tbe office:

The proceedings must be dismissed. The office of United States senator is a Federal office created by the Federal Constitntion. The qualifications of those aspiring to or holding the position are also prescribed by the Federal Constitution, which the state is without authority to modify or enlarge in any way; and the provisions of the state Constitution imposing restrictions upon the right of suffrage, and upon the right to hold public office, can have no application to the office of United States senator. The method of election to such office is also prescribed by Federal law, and- the mere fact that the state election machinery is adopted for that purpose, does not render applicable to a particular candidate the general disqualifications for public office found in the state Constitution. Peterson is not disqualified under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

Proceedings dismissed.