Montreville J. Brown
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Results of Elections of Justices to the Minnesota Supreme Court 1857 – 2016 ______
RESULTS OF ELECTIONS OF JUSTICES TO THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT 1857 – 2016 ______ COMPILED BY DOUGLAS A. HEDIN 1. The Election Code The Minnesota Constitution, ratified by voters on October 13, 1857, imposed conditions on state judges that were far more restrictive than the standard for federal judges set by Article III, §1, of the U. S. Constitution. Rather than serve “during good behavior,” equivalent to “lifetime” employ- ment, judges on the state supreme court and lower courts were elected to short terms. Article 6, §3, provided: The judges of the supreme court shall be elected by the electors of the state at large, and their terms of office shall be seven years and until their successors are elected and qualified. The inclusion of a requirement of an elected judiciary in the 1857 constitution, besides being a reaction against the policy of presidential appointments to the court during the territorial period, 1 reflected the prevailing belief in the wisdom of the people; popularly-elected judges, it was supposed, would protect the rights and interests of the people; and a wayward judge could be checked at the next election. 2 Each judicial election since 1857 has been conducted according to an election code, which the legislature has amended, revised, reformed, and transformed many times. Unlike contests for executive and legislative 1 For the politics behind the selection of each of the eleven justices to the territorial supreme court, see my article, “‘Rotation in Office’ and the Territorial Supreme Court, 1849-1857” (MLHP, 2010). 2 Minnesota was not alone in requiring the election of its judiciary. -
“ William Mitchell ”
“ WILLIAM MITCHELL ” By Edward Lees Commissioner, Minnesota Supreme Court =Ṃ= Foreword By Douglas A. Hedin Editor, MLHP The May 1920 issue of the Minnesota Law Review carried a 24 page article by Edward Lees on William Mitchell, always ranked as Minnesota’s greatest jurist. Lees was a Commissioner of the Supreme Court at the time. This was not the first study of Mitchell. John Stryker wrote a short but incisive chapter on him for The History of the Bench and Bar of Minnesota , published in 1904.1 Edwin Jaggard contributed a chapter for the eighth and last volume of Dean William Draper Lewis’s famous series, Great American Lawyers , published in 1909.2 Lees’s article is different. He had read hundreds of Mitchell’s opinions and his article reflects the depth of his reading. It has footnotes—each to a Mitchell opinion; it quotes appraisals of his rulings by prominent law school professors (but does not cite the sources of those comments). It is, in short, more scholarly than the others. It is posted here. 3 But before we turn away, a question remains: why did he write it? He was admitted to the Minnesota bar in 1886, at age twenty-one, and began practicing law in Winona. From 1895 to 1918, he was in partnership with 1 John E. Stryker, “William Mitchell” (MLHP, 2013) (published first in Hiram Fairchild Stevens, ed., 1 History of the Minnesota Bench and Bar 65-71 (1904)). 2 Edwin Ames Jaggard, “William Mitchell, 1832-1900” (MLHP, 2008) (published first in William Draper Lewis, ed., 8 Great American Lawyers 387-430 (1909)). -
Results of Elections of Justices to the Minnesota Supreme Court 1857 – 2018
Results of Elections of Justices to the Minnesota Supreme Court 1857 – 2018 ______ Compiled and Annotated By Douglas A. Hedin Editor, MLHP October • 2019 1 1. Introduction In the first chapter of the first volume of A History of the Criminal Law of England published in 1883, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen writes of the difficulty of writing the history of law: The law of England as a whole, or even the criminal law as a whole, can scarcely be said to have a history. There is no such series of continuous connected changes in the whole system as the use of the word "history" implies. Each particular part of the law, however, has been the subject of such changes. The law as to perjury and the definition of the crime of murder have each a history of their own, but the criminal law regarded as a whole is like a building, the parts of which have been erected at different times, in different styles and for different purposes. Each part has a history which begins at its foundation and ends when it reaches its present shape, but the whole has no history for it has no unity. How then is the history of the whole to be related? If an account of each successive change affecting any part is given in the order of time, the result is that it is impossible to follow the history of any one part, and the so called history becomes a mass of unconnected fragments. If, on the other hand, the history of each part is told uninterruptedly, there is a danger of frequent repetitions. -
Court Procedure and the Separation of Powers in Minnesota Maynard E
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 1 Article 13 1989 Court Procedure and the Separation of Powers in Minnesota Maynard E. Pirsig Randall M. Tietjen Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Pirsig, Maynard E. and Tietjen, Randall M. (1989) "Court Procedure and the Separation of Powers in Minnesota," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 15: Iss. 1, Article 13. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol15/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Pirsig and Tietjen: Court Procedure and the Separation of Powers in Minnesota COURT PROCEDURE AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN MINNESOTA MAYNARD E. PIRSIGt RANDALL M. TIETJENtt INTRODUCTION ......................................... 142 I. A HISTORY OF THE POWER OVER COURT PROCEDURE IN M INNESOTA ..................................... 145 A. Early Minnesota and the Arrival of the Field Code .. 146 B. ProceduralReform and the Judicial Rulemaking M ovement ...................................... 153 1. The Federal Enabling Act of 1934 ............ 153 2. The Minnesota Enabling Act of 1947 .......... 157 C. The First Constitutional Commission ............... 165 D. The Minnesota Bar Association and the 1956 Amendment of the Judiciary Article ................ 167 E. The Second Constitutional Commission ............. 168 F. Recent Rulemaking by the Minnesota Supreme Court 170 II. THE SOURCE AND SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURAL RULEMAKING POWER IN MINNESOTA ................. 177 A. The Inherent Power of the Court to Promulgate Rules 178 B. -
Results of Elections of Justices to the Minnesota Supreme Court 1857 – 2010 ______
RESULTS OF ELECTIONS OF JUSTICES TO THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT 1857 – 2010 ______ COMPILED BY DOUGLAS A. HEDIN 1. The Election Code The Minnesota Constitution, ratified by voters on October 13, 1857, imposed conditions on state judges that were far more restrictive than the standard for federal judges set by Article III, §1, of the U. S. Constitution. Rather than serve “during good behavior,” equivalent to “lifetime” employment, judges on the state supreme court and lower courts were elected to short terms. Article 6, §3, provided: The judges of the supreme court shall be elected by the electors of the state at large, and their terms of office shall be seven years and until their successors are elected and qualified. The inclusion of a requirement of an elected judiciary in the 1857 constitution, besides being a reaction against the policy of presidential appointments to the court during the territorial period, 1 reflected the prevailing belief in the wisdom of the people; popularly-elected judges, it was supposed, would protect the rights and interests of the people; and a wayward judge could be checked at the next election. 2 1 For the politics behind the selection of each of the eleven justices to the territorial supreme court, see my article, “‘Rotation in Office’ and the Territorial Supreme Court, 1849-1857” (MLHP, 2010). 2 Minnesota was not alone in requiring the election of its judiciary. For articles on the rise of popular elections for the judiciary in other states in 1 Each judicial election since 1857 has been conducted according to an election code, which the legislature has amended, revised, reformed, and transformed many times.