Legal Opinion · Dissent
State Ex Rel. Board of Education v. Erickson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 28, 1933No. 29,845PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Dissent
The charter provisions in question, other than the 1921 amendment of § 6 of c. XVIII, were but a reënactment and adoption for local purposes of existing law. In such case the old mandate is not repealed or amended but simply remains law. Nelson v. County of Itasca, 131 Minn. 478, 155 N.W. 752; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. Supp.) § 8925. That premise applies no less to reënactment of existing law for the restricted area and subjects of a city than to the broader field of state jurisdiction.
Inasmuch as the existing laws concerning the board of estimate and taxation and the board of education of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gaston v. MerriamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Smith ex rel. Smith v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Board of Education v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Ass'n v. City CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State Ex Rel. Board of Education v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933