Legal Opinion
Defenders of Wildlife v. Ventura
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 31, 2001No. C3-01-329PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
R.A. RANDALL, Judge.
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 463, arguing that it violates the single-subject requirement of Minn. Const, art. IV, § 17 and was the product of impermissible legislative logrolling. We find that chapter 463 does not violate the single-subject requirement of the constitution. Affirmed.
FACTS
The gray wolf (timber wolf), once listed as an endangered species by the federal government, was reclassified as a “threatened” species in 1978. As the wolf population continued to increase, the federal government began a process to remove the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- In Re HaggertySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Matter of BlilieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Elzie v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. CassidySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. FranklinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
- Wirtz v. QuinnIllinois Supreme Court · 2011
- Wirtz v. QuinnIllinois Supreme Court · 2011
- Unity Church of St. Paul v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Defenders of Wildlife v. VenturaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.