Legal Opinion

Brown v. Cannon Falls Township

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 10, 2006No. A05-2340, A05-2341, A05-2342, A05-2343PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

Appellants challenge the district court’s judgment and amended judgment declaring that they committed violations of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, imposing fines, awarding costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees, and declaring that appellants have forfeited their right to serve on the Cannon Falls Township Board of Supervisors, “effective immediately.” Appellants argue that (a) municipal officials are not subject to removal from office for multiple open meeting law violations adjudicated in a single proceeding; (b) the reliance on the advice of the township…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  2. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer PressSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  4. Gjovik v. StropeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  5. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community SchoolsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Franzwa v. City of HackensackDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2008
  2. Funk v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API