Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioners request that the Court: 1. Grant the Petition for Writ ofQuo Warranto; 2. Issue an Order for the Respondents to respond to the Petition by July 15, 2011; 3. Issue an Order allowing the Petitioners to reply by July 22, 2011; 4. Issue an Order for a hearing on this Petition for July 29,2011; 5. After the hearing, issue an order enjoining the Respondents from further Court proceedings seeking court orders which violate the state legislature's exclusive prerogatives to appropriate funds and enjoining the Respondents from any other executive or judicial actions which violate the state legislature's exclusive prerogatives to appropriate funds; 6. Any final order should take effect seven-days after filing to allow the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government a final opportunity to resolve the budgeting issues; 7. To award to Petitioners statutorily-allowed attorney's fees and costs; and 8. Any other remedy, legal or equitable, that the Court deems just. 56
Dated: July 8,2011. 57 MOHRMAN & KAARDAL, P.A. Erick G. Kaardal, Atty. No. 229647 William F. Mohrman, Atty. No. 168816 Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 341-1074 (612) 341-1076 Facsimile Counsel for Petitioners State Senator Warren Limmer, State Senator Scott J. Newman, State Senator Sean R. Nienow, State Senator Roger C. Chamberlain, State Representative Glenn H. Gruenhagen, and State Representative Ernest G. Leidiger
Page 2 and 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF PETITI
Page 4 and 5:
C. The Attorney General's "core fun
Page 6 and 7:
INTRODUCTION 1. Minnesota's executi
Page 8 and 9:
JURISDICTION The Supreme Court has
Page 10 and 11: ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Article XI requ
Page 12 and 13: STATEMENT OF FACTS Minnesota's fail
Page 14 and 15: 15 fd. Governor vetoed in 2011, Min
Page 16: Moneys appropriated in 2009 Minn. L
Page 19 and 20: 29. For instance, on May 21,2001, t
Page 21 and 22: 38. Similar to 2001, the court orde
Page 23 and 24: exigent ofcircumstances" to justify
Page 25 and 26: an appropriation by law. The need f
Page 27 and 28: lost because the judiciary has usur
Page 29 and 30: The Court stated that a single legi
Page 31 and 32: generallY recognized that a taxpaye
Page 33 and 34: While the consent ofthe attorney ge
Page 35 and 36: circumstances test, however, do not
Page 37 and 38: General Assembly enacted an executi
Page 40 and 41: the constitution grants the Governo
Page 42: fund that state program. But what c
Page 45 and 46: Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, p. 19
Page 47 and 48: Commissioner is to credit revenue f
Page 49 and 50: Supremacy Clause applies. However,
Page 51 and 52: 118. For example, the state is requ
Page 53: C. The Attorney General's "core fun
Page 56 and 57: 131. State statutes are explicit in
Page 58 and 59: appropriate state funds. Because th
show all

Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?