Rukavina v. Pawlenty
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STONEBURNER, Judge.
Appellants challenge summary judgment dismissing, for lack of standing and on the merits, their claim that the commissioner of finance’s $49 million reduction in allotments to the Minnesota Minerals 21st Century Fund (the mineral fund) and transfer of that amount to the general fund, under Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4(b), to address the deficit in 2003, was unauthorized by the statute and unconstitutional. Because the range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS) has standing to pursue the claim, we reverse the district court’s determination that all of the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Raines v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Coleman v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brayton v. PawlentySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Dunham v. RoerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- West Farms Mall, LLC v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Barber v. RitterColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
- Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYONCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.