Court Opinion

ID: 9592184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:11:18.995466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:14.966645
License: Public Domain

Thomas Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
The proceedings relative to the second election held on July 18, 1949, appear permeated by a deliberate attempt to meet only the minimum legal requirements and to evade the spirit of free, open, and democratic referendum. The resolution passed subsequent to the first special election, as quoted in the majority opinion, was not expected to give notice of the matters to be determined at the meeting to more than a handful of interested persons. M. S. A. 124.07 requires ten days’ posted notice, and further provides that such notice shall specify “the business named in such request * * * and the time and place of the meeting.” It further provides that “No business except that named in the notice shall be transacted at such meeting.” The notice here merely stated the desire to revoke “the resolution adopted at the Special Meeting of Common School District No. 138 Held June 20, 1949,” and contained no further reference to the subject matter of such resolution.
Under such circumstances, I hesitate to affix this court’s stamp of approval to the proceedings, and for these reasons I must dissent from the views expressed in the majority opinion.