Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentGilbert, Justice
I agree with the majority’s analysis insofar as it concludes that the Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act are generally good policy. I believe, however, that the Minnesota Constitution prohibits the legislature from applying these laws to the Board of Regents’ selection of a president for the University of Minnesota. The people of Minnesota have vested the Board of Regents with the authority to manage the University and to select a president. The majority’s decision indelibly infringes upon the Board of Regents’ constitutional autonomy. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- South Dakota v. DoleSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Reed v. BjornsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- State Ex Rel. University of Minnesota v. ChaseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Federated Publications, Inc v. Michigan State University Board of TrusteesMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.