Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. City of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 2, 1976No. 46252Published

1Dissent

*127ROGOSHESKE, JUSTICE

(dissenting).

I dissent. The majority opinion in my view interferes without justification in the authorized, required, and orderly processes of defendant city’s civil service system and is without support in the case law of this state.

As the majority indicates, it is fundamental that a provisional appointment under civil service cannot become permanent merely by lapse of time. State ex rel. Florrell v. Mangni, 230 Minn. 518, 42 N. W. 2d 529 (1950); Crnkovich v. Independent School Dist. No. 701, 273 Minn. 518,142 N. W. 2d 284 (1966). Plaintiffs herein were regularly employed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Coduti v. HauserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
  2. Vaccaro v. Board of EducationCivil Court of the City of New York · 1967
  3. State Ex Rel. Florrell v. MangniSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. Crnkovich v. Independent School District No. 701Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API