Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 206. VOTING SYSTEMS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 206.50 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1943–1963 · leading case: Murray v. Floyd, 11 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1943).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Murray v. Floyd, 11 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1943). · cites it 5× “The cases brought to this court reveal .that large numbers of voters in some respects mark their ballots irregularly, carelessly, and ignorantly.”
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “1957, § 206.50, from which they were derived. Section 204.”
Marshall v. Stepka, 108 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. 1961). · cites it 2× “22 (formerly § 206.50). Questions raised by this appeal are governed by Minn.”
Sperl v. Wegwerth, 120 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1963). “1957, § 206.50(7). The rule is well recognized that reenactment of a prior statute presumptively constitutes an adoption of the prior construction of a reenacted statute, and as we observed in the Murray case ( 216 Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 206.50(3) — 1 case
Murray v. Floyd, 11 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1943). “The cases brought to this court reveal .that large numbers of voters in some respects mark their ballots irregularly, carelessly, and ignorantly.”
— Minn. Stat. § 206.50(5) — 1 case
Murray v. Floyd, 11 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1943). “The cases brought to this court reveal .that large numbers of voters in some respects mark their ballots irregularly, carelessly, and ignorantly.”
— Minn. Stat. § 206.50(7) — 1 case
Sperl v. Wegwerth, 120 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1963). “1957, § 206.50(7). The rule is well recognized that reenactment of a prior statute presumptively constitutes an adoption of the prior construction of a reenacted statute, and as we observed in the Murray case ( 216 Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 206.50(8) — 1 case
Murray v. Floyd, 11 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1943). “The cases brought to this court reveal .that large numbers of voters in some respects mark their ballots irregularly, carelessly, and ignorantly.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.