Court Opinion

ID: 9698653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:56:33.303353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.531305
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result. While my views on the subject are fully set out in my concurrence in Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777, 783 (Minn.1986), I do agree that this court may give deference to the legislature by making its rulings prospective only. It was not my intent in Mattson nor is it my intent now to declare any act of the legislature unconstitutional if the legislature has not been given proper warning of the consequences of its actions. See Naftalin v. King, 257 Minn. 498, 525, 102 N.W.2d 301, 304 (Minn.1960) (a funding measure, though contrary to the constitution, would not be invalidated, but would be if repeated).
Since it now appears that the majority opinion adopts the position of my concurrence in Mattson (in which Justice Simo-nett joined), I am content to affirm this case. The legislature hereafter has full notice of the consequences of overstepping constitutional limitations in its drafting of omnibus bills.