Legal Opinion

Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 28, 2009No. A08-1343PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

Appellants challenge a district court order dismissing their constitutional challenge to increases in legislative per diem allowances. Because we conclude that the per diem increases did not violate the Minnesota Constitution, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2007, committees in both houses of the Minnesota Legislature approved an increase to the maximum per diem allowance for their members’ living expenses, the senate from $66 to $96, and the house from $66 to $77. The increases were effective immediately.

In February 2008, appellants, state taxpayers, legislators, and an association…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. In Re HaggertySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  5. State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Christopher v. Windom Area School BoardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
  2. McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais HeightsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
  3. DRB 24, LLC, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated property owners in Minneapolis that have been assessed vacant building registration fees in 2013 v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
  4. In re the Matter of: Angel A. Fernandez v. Cindy Marbella AnaribaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API