Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.W. 923.

101 citing documents.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
cited with approval in Otto, d at 458 n.11.
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
In the Matter of a Petition for Decertification of an Exclusive Representative Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Builders, d at 299; (“The term ‘subject,’ as used in the constitution, is to be given a broad and extended meaning .
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Johnson v. Harrison , 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W.
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
7 Minnesota applies the germaneness test to determine whether a law violates the Clause, broadly construing the term “subject.” Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , 50 N.W.
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.
Townsend v. State 767 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2009
Townsend v. State 767 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2009
The clause is construed liberally and laws will meet the requirements of the clause so long as all of the provisions within “fall under some one general idea, [are] so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject.” Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , 50 N.W.
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
Associated Builders, d at 299 (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , 50 N.W.
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Thirty-three years later we further developed our analysis in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 578 , 50 N.W.
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
Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , 50 N.W.
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
Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , 50 N.W.
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 Ex Rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski 391 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State Ex Rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski 391 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
See Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W.
Bernstein v. Commissioner of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bernstein v. Commissioner of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W.
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Wass v. Anderson 252 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1977
Wass v. Anderson 252 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1977
See, e. g., Thomas v. *398 Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221 , Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
Hunt v. Nevada State Bank 172 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1969
h a large number of different and disconnected subjects are united in one *114 bill and then carried through by a combination of interests; and, secondly, to prevent surprise and fraud upon the people and the legislature by including provisions in a bill whose title gives no intimation of the proposed legislation, or of the interests affected.” Its basic meaning was stated in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , , 28 A. S. R. 382, 384: “* * * All that is necessary is that the act should embr
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
The rules regarding construction of the titles to statutes in the light of the constitutional article have frequently been stated and are no better stated anywhere than in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , , where we said: “ * * * The term ‘subject,’ as used in the constitution, is to be given a broad and extended meaning, so as to allow the legislature full scope to include in one act all matters having a logical or natural connection.
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 136 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1965
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 136 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1965
11 Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221, 245 , 48 N. W. (2d) 175, 190 ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , .
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 578 , .
Governmental Research Bureau, Inc. v. St. Louis County 104 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1960
Governmental Research Bureau, Inc. v. St. Louis County 104 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1960
In Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382, we said: “ ‘All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understandin
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
Visina v. Freeman 89 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1958
21 In Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , , 28 A. S. R. 382, 384, we established the applicable rule, since followed in construing this constitutional provision, where we said: «* * * ah that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall unde
Buhl v. Joint Independent Consolidated School District No. 11 82 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1957
Buhl v. Joint Independent Consolidated School District No. 11 82 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1957
The test to be used in determining duplicity under this constitutional provision was clearly stated in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , , 28 A. S. R. 382, and has been followed consistently since.
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
Western States Utilities Co. v. City of Waseca 65 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1954
in the state of Minnesota, whether existing under a special or general law, or under a home rule charter, to prescribe reasonable rates under which public service corporations supplying gas or current for electric lighting or power purposes * * * may operate within any such city.” The purposes of this provision of the state constitution were stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , .
City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines 52 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1952
City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines 52 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1952
Rules for the determination of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature under Minn. Const, art. 4, § 27, were stated , by Mr. *264 Justice Mitchell in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 , , as follows: “* * * To ‘constitute duplicity of subject, an act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any legitimate connection with or relation to each other.
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth 48 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1951
to this phase of the matter, the trial court stated in its memorandum: “* * * The title seems to be compact and unified, and, without attempting to be indices of the contents of the act, which it need not be, it gives a clear and comprehensive indication of the comprehensive enactment to which they severally relate and complies with all the requirements referred to in Johnson v. Harrison, (1891) 47 Minn. 575 , , * * * It is significant that the subject of housing and urban redevelopment is now c
State v. Meyer 37 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1949

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by