Legal Opinion
Seventy-Seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Carlson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 20, 1991No. CX-91-1040PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KEITH, Chief Justice.
The Seventy-Seventh Minnesota State Senate and Seventy-Seventh Minnesota State House of Representatives have petitioned this court to exercise its original jurisdiction pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 480.04 (1990) to address the question of the effectiveness of attempted vetoes by the Governor of a number of bills passed by the Legislature and presented to the Governor for signature. See Minn. Const, art. 4, § 23; State v. Hoppe, 298 Minn. 386, 215 N.W.2d 797 (1974); State ex rel. Putnam v. Holm, 172 Minn. 162, 215 N.W. 200 (1927). We dismiss the petition and a pending motion…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Putnam v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Town of Burnsville v. City of BloomingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- State v. HoppeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- State Ex Rel. Alexander v. RiggSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rice v. ConnollySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Page v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Inter Faculty Organization v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. DaytonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Minnesota Voters Alliance and Kirk Stensrud v. Steve Simon, only in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary of State, Joe Mansky, only in his official capacity as the Ramsey County Election Manager, Virginia Gelms, only in her official capacity as the Hennepin County Election Manager, and Election Judges John and Jane Doe, only in their official capacities as Election JudgesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016