Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

While the consent ofthe attorney general was initially required in cases initiated by
private persons, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a writ could be issued, in its
discretion, even though the attorney general had not consented to the writ.68
Consequently, private individuals - as here - may seek a writ ofquo warranto without
the consent ofthe attorney general.69
70. Most recently however, this Court has limited its jurisdictional discretion of
petitions for quo warranto: "only [in] the most exigent ofcircumstances.,,7o As previously
mentioned, this Court has not delineated the meaning of"the most exigent of
circumstances." But "exigent" does mean "requiring immediate action or aid; urgent.,,71
The constitutional issues presented to the Court with the continuing issuance ofDistrict
Court orders to disburse state moneys - without an appropriation by law and the
blending ofexecutive and legislative political functions under the judiciary - are exigent
circumstances.
68 See Rice v. Connolly, 88 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992); Town ofBurnsville v. City of
Bloomington, 117 N.W.2d 746 (1962); State ex rei. Town ofStuntz v. City ofChisholm,
264 N.W. 798 (1936).
69 In 2005, Counsel for Petitioners sought an attorney general appointment as special
counsel, but it was denied on August 24,2005. Pet. App. 403-04. Counseland Petitioners
have not made a similar effort in 2011 - based on appearance of futility.
70 Sup. Ct. Or. Denying Pet. Quo Warranto, State ofMinnesota ex rei. v.lngison 2 (A05­
1742) (Sept. 9, 2005)(original emphasis), quoting Rice v.Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 421,244
(Minn. 1992)
71 Black's Law Dictionary 655 (Bryan A. Gamer ed., 9 th ed., Thomson Reuters 2009).
29