Legal Opinion

In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 12, 2006No. A06-336Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.

Relator Gregory Scott appeals from respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s order denying his motion for reconsideration, arguing that the employment-restriction statute, Minn.Stat. § 216A.036 (2004), (1) did not apply to his employment; (2) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, and (3) did not authorize a penalty in the absence of scienter and in light of relator’s reliance on the advice of counsel. Because the statute unambiguously and constitutionally prohibited relator’s employment and because the commission did not abuse its discretion by…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  3. State v. NewstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  4. State v. SuessSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  5. Associated Builders & Contractors v. VenturaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000

7 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