Legal Opinion · Dissent

Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 15, 2004No. A03-124, A03-155Published

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

  1. South Dakota v. DoleSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Reed v. BjornsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  3. State Ex Rel. University of Minnesota v. ChaseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  4. Federated Publications, Inc v. Michigan State University Board of TrusteesMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

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

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

Powered by the Exa API