Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 31, 2000No. C8-98-1383, C1-98-1385, C4-98-1428Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPaul H. Anderson, J.

People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either of them being made. — Otto von Bismarck1

I agree with the majority that chapter 231 violates the Single Subject and Title Clause of Article IV, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution, but I do not agree that we can simply excise one offending provision and allow the remainder of the law to continue in effect. Therefore, I respectfully dissent on Part II of the majority opinion.

For the reasons expressed in the majority opinion, the inclusion of a prevailing wage law concerning school construction in what was essentially a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
Nieting v. BlondellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
State Ex Rel. Foster v. NaftalinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
Marriage of Holmberg v. HolmbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
State Ex Rel. Mattson v. KiedrowskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986

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