Court Opinion

ID: 9736079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:42:47.94847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.197778
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that the record does not support appellants’ claim that the trial judges abused discretionary powers in refusing to enjoin the election, as the statutory requirements essential to the exercise of such power were not met.
However, I do not agree with the statements which indicate that the board members are validly elected. The appeal from the superintendent’s order of consolidation suspends the order and destroys its force and effect as a basis for any action. In re Appeal of Lego v. Rolfe, 268 Minn. 483, 129 N. W. (2d) 811. Electing board members so that they may plan for the future of the new district during the pendency of the appeal is inconsistent with the right of those opposed to the order of consolidation to have its validity passed upon by the courts. Planning in this context is no different than actual operation in its effect upon the opponents of consolidation. They can hardly be expected to take part in either the election or planning, both of which they regard as illegal acts. To permit an election, and thereby create a constant threat that some binding action may be taken before validation, needlessly aggravates the dispute and invites further litigation. It is difficult for me to conceive of any reason why an election must be held if the new board has no power whatsoever to act. The holding of the election necessarily results in a change in the status quo from what it was at the time the appeal was perfected.
I doubt that it is necessary to pass on the issue of the validity of the election, but if it is, I believe we must declare it to be a nullity unless we intend to deviate from our repeated holdings that the appeal suspends *375the order of consolidation, and all matters relating thereto are to remain in status quo until the appeal is finally determined.