Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wass v. Anderson, 252 N.W.2d 131.

30 citing documents.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The two clauses “serve independent though interrelated purposes.”
In the Matter of a Petition for Decertification of an Exclusive Representative Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The two clauses “serve independent though interrelated purposes.” Wass v. Anderson , 4 The Single Subject Clause “should be interpreted liberally and the restriction [is] met if the bill [is] germane to one general subject.” Assoc.
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
155 (Minn. 1989) (holding that a law permitting the acquisition of park land without public consent "is germane to the broad subject of appropriations for the operation of state government " (emphasis added) ); Wass v. Anderson , 312 Minn. 394 , , 137 (1977) (explaining that "transportation" is "a general term," but a "subject may be expressed generally" (citation omitted) ).
Otto v. Wright County 899 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Otto v. Wright County 899 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The two clauses "serve independent though interrelated purposes.” Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 398
Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
“The function of the title requirement is to provide notice of the interests likely to be affected by the law and ‘to prevent surprise and fraud upon the people and the legislature by including provisions in a bill whose title gives no intimation of the nature of the proposed legislation.’ ” Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 398 , -35 (1977) (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , 50 N.W.
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
210, 214 (1898)); Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 399 , (noting, in a challenge to an amendment based on the alleged violation of the single subject rule, the concession “that the constitution imposes no requirement as to the form a proposed constitutional amendment must take,” and that while preferable to propose amendments separately, th
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 399-400 , 252 NW.2d 131, 135-36 (1977).
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
In Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 399-400 , -36 (1977), we rejected plaintiffs challenge that the single subject *301 provision was violated by “an act relating to transportation” that incorporated a constitutional amendment levying taxes on fuel for vehicles on public highways and bonds issued to finance highway construction.
Masters v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 604 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Masters v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 604 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 402-03
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Carlson 590 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Carlson 590 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
e various sections * * * is indeed a mere filament.” Blanch, d at 155 (“park bill” contained in omnibus appropriations bill not invalid because germane to broad subject of appropriations for operation of state government); see also Metropolitan Sports Facilities, d at 491 (inclusion of property tax exemption provision germane to omnibus bill relating to taxes); Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 402 , (provisions incorporated into omnibus bill concerning use, financing and construction of public h
Caprice v. Gomez 552 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Caprice v. Gomez 552 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 398 , -35 (1977).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 478 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1991
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 478 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1991
Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 398 , -36 (1977).
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
923, 924 (1891) (single subject provision designed to prevent “logrolling legislation” where different and disconnected subjects are united in one bill and passed by coalitions); see also Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 399-403 , -37 (1977) (“an act relating to transportation” specific enough to encompass a comprehensive bill with various provisions, including taxation provisions); Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n, (single subject provision does not require title of
Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 449 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1989
Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 449 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1989
*155 Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394, 402 , (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 /577, 50 N.W.
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
Wass v. Anderson, 312 Minn. 394
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
Distinguished Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
297, 301 (1939), affirmed, 309 U.S. 270 (1940); Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 202 , Wass v. Anderson, Minn.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by