Court Opinion

ID: 9696093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:36:13.213493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.414200
License: Public Domain

FrankT. Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
It appears to me that the sole issue before this court, in determining the jurisdiction of the district court to issue an order to show cause as *23to why an order should not be issued compelling the Board of County Commissioners to set a date for hearing, is whether the law clearly imposes upon the Board of County Commissioners a public duty to set a date for a hearing.
Plaintiff-respondent takes the position that Ex. Sess. L. 1959, c. 71, art. 3, § 3, subd. 4, is mandatory in that the county board must set a time for hearing not more than 60 days from the date of the meeting, and that, under subd. 5, it must issue an order granting or denying the petition within 6 months after the date it was filed, or August 18,1959.
The defendants-relators contend that the foregoing is not mandatory but merely directory and within the discretion of the county board. They refer us to Ex. Sess. L. 1959, c. 71, art. 3, § 7, subd. 5, previously codified as Minn. St. 122.018, subd. 5, which states:
“Upon receipt of a plat and the supporting statement, each auditor shall immediately notify his respective county board. After such notification, and during the pendency of proceedings under the plat and supporting statement or for a period of six months, whichever is shorter, no action may be taken by the county board under any other law to modify the boundary of any district if any part of the district is included in an area proposed for consolidation.”
It is my opinion that where proceedings are commenced for the consolidation of part of a school district under Minn. St. 122.23 no other proceedings involving the same or part of the same territory should be considered until there has been a disposition of the first proceeding.
Knutson, Justice (dissenting).
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Frank T. Gallagher.