Constitutional Lawconstitutional challengesame briefsprior appeallaw of the caseaffirmedstate statute
Facts
The appeal challenged Laws 1933, chapter 339, page 514, as violating provisions of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. The same parties had previously litigated those constitutional objections in an earlier appeal. In this appeal, the parties submitted the case on the same briefs used before. The court treated the present appeal as raising the same questions already decided.
Issue
Whether the court should again entertain a constitutional attack on L. 1933, c. 339, when the same parties had already presented the same constitutional objections in a prior appeal on the same briefs.
Rule
When a prior appeal in the same case has already decided the same issues between the same parties, that earlier decision controls a later appeal raising the same issues.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a zoning dispute in Duluth, Nora Ellison challenged a Minnesota statute as violating both the federal and state constitutions. The Minnesota appellate court rejected those constitutional objections in an earlier appeal in the same case. After judgment was entered on remand, Nora took another appeal pressing the same constitutional objections against the same statute.
How should the appellate court treat Nora's renewed constitutional challenge?
Explanation. The governing rule is that when a prior appeal in the same case has already decided the same issues between the same parties, that earlier decision controls a later appeal raising the same issues. The majority opinion did not undertake a new constitutional analysis; it treated the first appeal as ruling the second and affirmed on that authority. (Derived from Blaisdell v. Home Building & Loan Association (n.d.).)