Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesotagreen2 sentences1993The quorum requirement in Moberg reflects the supreme court’s unwillingness to subject gatherings of public officials to the open meeting law where the group lacks power to “actually transact business.” Minnesota Daily v. University of Minn., 432 N.W.2d 189, 193 (1988), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1989). 1993The quorum requirement emphasizes “the importance of the power of the governing body to actually transact business.” Minnesota Daily v. University of Minn., 432 N.W.2d 189, 193 (Minn.App.1988), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Marbury v. Madisongreen1 sentence2025Minnesota Statutes section 5.05 states, in full: “The secretary of state shall attend at the beginning of each legislative session, to call the members of the house of representatives to order and to preside until a speaker is elected.” 5 So long as Secretary of State Simon’s petition is justiciable, we have no need to decide the justiciability of the other petition brought by Representatives Hortman, Long, and Hollins in order to address the quorum clause question raised in both petitions. 7 province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr | 1 | 1 |
Schowalter v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The judiciary can “rule on the Legislature’s noncompliance with a constitutional mandate,” Cruz-Guzman, 916 N.W.2d at 9 , especially in as much as “the interpretation of the constitution’s language is a judicial, not a legislative, question,” id. at 10 (quoting Schowalter v. State, 822 N.W.2d 292, 301 (Minn. 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Hoppegreen1 sentence2025See Peterson, 260 N.W. at 217 (stating only that where “the vote of two-thirds of the members elected to the common council shall be necessary 13 Most significantly, even if “members elected” has the meaning ascribed to it by respondents, it does not necessarily follow that the reference to “each house” in the quorum clause in Article IV, Section 13, must mean something different than a reference to the total number of seats in the House prescribed by law, which is currently 134. | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Bennettgreen1 sentence1988See Minnesota Education Association v. Bennett, 321 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Minn.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Goodwin v. Flahaven
green
1 sentence2025“We assume that the parties will now conform to this opinion without the necessity of issuing a formal writ.” Palmer, 182 N.W.2d at 186 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cruz-Guzman v. State
green
2 sentences2025The judiciary can “rule on the Legislature’s noncompliance with a constitutional mandate,” Cruz-Guzman, 916 N.W.2d at 9 , especially in as much as “the interpretation of the constitution’s language is a judicial, not a legislative, question,” id. at 10 (quoting Schowalter v. State, 822 N.W.2d 292, 301 (Minn. 2012)). 2025Minnesota Statutes section 5.05 states, in full: “The secretary of state shall attend at the beginning of each legislative session, to call the members of the house of representatives to order and to preside until a speaker is elected.” 5 So long as Secretary of State Simon’s petition is justiciable, we have no need to decide the justiciability of the other petition brought by Representatives Hortman, Long, and Hollins in order to address the quorum clause question raised in both petitions. 7 province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Chase v. Babcock
green
1 sentence2025In considering context, we are also mindful of the requirement that the “entire article”—which here is Article IV governing the Legislature—“is to be construed as a whole, [and] receive a practical, common sense construction.” Chase, 220 N.W. at 410 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.