Legal Opinion
Brayton v. Pawlenty
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 5, 2010No. A10-64PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MAGNUSON, C.J.
This case presents questions about the authority of Minnesota’s executive branch under MinmStat. § 16A.152, subd. 4 *359(2008), to reduce allotments in order to avoid deficit spending. The Ramsey County District Court held that use of the statutory unallotment authority to reduce funding for the Minnesota Supplemental Aid-Special Diet Program in the circumstances of this case violated separation of powers principles. We affirm, although on different grounds.
Six Minnesota residents who qualify for payments under the Minnesota Supplemental Aid — Special Diet (Special Diet)…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- American Tower, L.P. v. City of GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Colorado General Assembly v. LammSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
- Chiles v. CHILDREN A, B, C, D, E, AND FSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
- Rios v. SymingtonArizona Supreme Court · 1992
- Gleason v. GearySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- In re the Welfare of J.J.P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.