Marine v. Whipple
Cited by
- Bowman v. Pamida, Inc. 261 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
- Petition of Giblin 232 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1975
- Curry v. Young 173 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1969
- State ex rel. Graham v. District Court 150 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1967
- Scoles v. Hurd 148 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1967
- In RE APPEAL OF LEGO v. Rolfe 129 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1964
- In Re Petition of Parks 114 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1962
- Smith v. Tuman 114 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1962
- State v. Hartman 112 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1961
- State Ex Rel. Turnbladh v. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY 107 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1960
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State Ex Rel. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Enersen 42 N.W.2d 25
- Bielke v. American Crystal Sugar Co. 288 N.W. 584
- State Ex Rel. Laurisch v. Pohl 8 N.W.2d 227
- Williams v. Rolfe 101 N.W.2d 923
- State Ex Rel. Laurisch v. Johnson 12 N.W.2d 343
- Bellows v. Ericson 46 N.W.2d 654
- Heinsch v. Kirby 24 N.W.2d 493
- State Ex Rel. Sheehan v. District Court 93 N.W.2d 1
- State ex rel. Hahn v. Young 9 N.W. 737
- Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Nadasdy 76 N.W.2d 670
- State Ex Rel. Beede v. Funck 299 N.W. 684
- State ex rel. Stenstrom v. Wilson 48 N.W.2d 513
- State Ex Rel. Flodin v. District Court Fifteenth Judicial District 25 N.W.2d 692
Opinion text
FrankT. Gallagher, Justice (dissenting). It appears to me that the sole issue before this court, in determining the jurisdiction of the district court to issue an order to show cause as *23 to why an order should not be issued compelling the Board of County Commissioners to set a date for hearing, is whether the law clearly imposes upon the Board of County Commissioners a public duty to set a date for a hearing. Plaintiff-respondent takes the position that Ex. Sess. L. 1959, c. 71, art. 3, § 3, subd. 4, is mandatory in that the county board must set a time for hearing not more than 60 days from the date of the meeting, and that, under subd. 5, it must issue an order granting or denying the petition within 6 months after the date it was filed, or August 18,1959. The defendants-relators contend that the foregoing is not mandatory but merely directory and within the discretion of the county board. They refer us to Ex. Sess. L. 1959, c. 71, art. 3, § 7, subd. 5, previously codified as Minn. St. 122.018, subd. 5, which states: “Upon receipt of a plat and the supporting statement, each auditor shall immediately notify his respective county board. After such notification, and during the pendency of proceedings under the plat and supporting statement or for a period of six months, whichever is shorter, no action may be taken by the county board under any other law to modify the boundary of any district if any part of the district is included in an area proposed for consolidation.” It is my opinion that where proceedings are commenced for the consolidation of part of a school district under Minn. St. 122.23 no other proceedings involving the same or part of the same territory should be considered until there has been a disposition of the first proceeding. Knutson, Justice (dissenting). I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Frank T. Gallagher.