Hedlund v. Hanson, No. 4-62-Civ.-122.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota |
| Writing for the Court | SANBORN, Senior Circuit , and DEVITT and NORDBYE |
| Citation | 213 F. Supp. 172 |
| Parties | George HEDLUND, Richard J. Parish, and George C. Gubbins, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Richard O. HANSON, Hennepin County Commissioner, George W. Matthews, Hennepin County Commissioner, Elwood Swanson, Hennepin County Commissioner, Mrs. I. G. Scott, Hennepin County Commissioner, S. Earl Ainsworth, Hennepin County Commissioner, Robert F. Fitzsimmons, Hennepin County Auditor, George H. Totten, Jr., Hennepin County Treasurer, Defendants, and Clay R. Moore, Intervenor. |
| Docket Number | No. 4-62-Civ.-122. |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1962 |
213 F. Supp. 172
George HEDLUND, Richard J. Parish, and George C. Gubbins, Jr., Plaintiffs,
v.
Richard O. HANSON, Hennepin County Commissioner, George W. Matthews, Hennepin County Commissioner, Elwood Swanson, Hennepin County Commissioner, Mrs. I. G. Scott, Hennepin County Commissioner, S. Earl Ainsworth, Hennepin County Commissioner, Robert F. Fitzsimmons, Hennepin County Auditor, George H. Totten, Jr., Hennepin County Treasurer, Defendants, and
Clay R. Moore, Intervenor.
No. 4-62-Civ.-122.
United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.
October 3, 1962.
William Merlin, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.
George M. Scott, Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants.
Clay R. Moore, Intervenor, Minneapolis, Minn., pro se.
Before SANBORN, Senior Circuit Judge, and DEVITT and NORDBYE, District Judges.
DEVITT, District Judge.
This is an action under the Declaratory Judgments Act, Sec. 2201, 28 U.S. C.A. seeking judicial relief against the claimed malapportionment of Hennepin County, Minnesota County Commissioner Districts. The plaintiffs are citizens and voters of Hennepin County and live outside of the City of Minneapolis in the Villages of Robbinsdale, Golden Valley
In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs ask, among other things, that the court direct the present Hennepin County Commissioners to reapportion the districts, to declare that the present Commissioners hold their offices contrary to law, to declare their offices vacant, and to direct the Hennepin County Treasurer to withhold salary payments to the County Commissioners.
In an answer filed by Hennepin County Attorney George Scott on behalf of all of the defendants, the claimed malapportionment of the Commissioner Districts is not denied. It is admitted that the plaintiffs' representation on the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County is inadequate and that the present composition of the Commissioner Districts results in an inequality of representation.
The intervenor is a Minneapolis lawyer who lives in Hennepin County outside of the City of Minneapolis. He appears pro se, and takes the position that there is malapportionment in the Commissioner Districts, but that this should be corrected by action of the State Legislature.
This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester
...226 F.Supp. 301; Bianchi v. Griffing (E.D., N.Y., 1963), 217 F.Supp. 166. Not directly in point are Hedlund v. Hanson (D.Minn., 1962), 213 F.Supp. 172, and Ludwig v. Board of County Commissioners of Saspy County (1960), 170 Neb. 600, 103 N.W.2d 838, although dealing with the problem of alle......
-
Lodico v. Board of Supervisors of County of Rockland, No. 65-Civ. 2361.
...the tasks of the trial bench are not insubstantial. As stated by the District Court for the District of Minnesota, in Hedlund v. Hanson, 213 F.Supp. 172 (1962),11 wherein the apportionment of Hennepin County Minnesota County Commissioner Districts, was "The federal courts are disinclined to......
-
Gostin v. Nelson, Civ. A. No. 2123.
...had to the Pennsylvania corporation may not be taken into account in determining the damages which plaintiff sustained by reason 213 F. Supp. 172 of the failure of Supermarket Consultants, Inc., to receive 50% of the stock of the Pennsylvania corporation as Nelson had agreed it should. No d......
-
State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester
...226 F.Supp. 301; Bianchi v. Griffing (E.D., N.Y., 1963), 217 F.Supp. 166. Not directly in point are Hedlund v. Hanson (D.Minn., 1962), 213 F.Supp. 172, and Ludwig v. Board of County Commissioners of Saspy County (1960), 170 Neb. 600, 103 N.W.2d 838, although dealing with the problem of alle......
-
Lodico v. Board of Supervisors of County of Rockland, No. 65-Civ. 2361.
...the tasks of the trial bench are not insubstantial. As stated by the District Court for the District of Minnesota, in Hedlund v. Hanson, 213 F.Supp. 172 (1962),11 wherein the apportionment of Hennepin County Minnesota County Commissioner Districts, was "The federal courts are disinclined to......
-
Gostin v. Nelson, Civ. A. No. 2123.
...had to the Pennsylvania corporation may not be taken into account in determining the damages which plaintiff sustained by reason 213 F. Supp. 172 of the failure of Supermarket Consultants, Inc., to receive 50% of the stock of the Pennsylvania corporation as Nelson had agreed it should. No d......