Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pike v. Gunyou

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 13, 1992No. C2-92-734Published

1ConcurrenceCrippen, Judge

Our lawful role in this case is remarkably limited. Our only duty is to determine whether or not the trial court erred in applying Minn.Stat. § 562.02 (1990), either in choosing to impose or in formulating the amount or conditions of a surety bond. The law does not permit us to issue an advisory opinion, a “holdpng],” on a question that is not before the court — the issue of whether in the future other taxpayers can maintain litigation on the same constitutional claims now unsuccessfully advanced by appellants.

Undoubtedly there is an ample audience for appellate court pronouncements on 1991…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Darr v. BurfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  4. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. United States v. FruehaufSupreme Court of the United States · 1961

28 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