FILED WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2011
A11-1222 State Senator Warren L. Limmer, et al., Petitioners, vs. Lori
Swanson In her official capacity as Attorney General, Mark
Dayton in his official capacity as Governor, Jim Showalter in
his official capacity As Commissioner of the Department of
Management and Budget, and Kathleen R. Gearin in her
official capacity as Chief Judge of the Ramsey County
District Court, Respondents; League of Minnesota Cities,
et al., Intervenors.
Supreme Court.
Petition for writ of quo warranto is dismissed as moot. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
Concurring, Justices Paul H. Anderson and David R. Stras.
Dissenting, Justice Alan C. Page.
OPINIONS FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2011
A09-1776 In re: Individual 35W Bridge Litigation.
A09-1778
Court of Appeals.
The 2007 amendments to Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (2010) do not clearly and manifestly express a legislative intent to retroactively revive an action for contribution previously extinguished by the statute of repose before the amendments were effective.
Affirmed. Justice Christopher J. Dietzen.
A10-87 In re: Individual 35W Bridge Litigation.
A10-89
A10-90
A10-91
Court of Appeals.
1. The 2007 amendments to Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (2010) do not clearly and manifestly express a legislative intent to retroactively revive a cause of action previously extinguished by the statute of repose before the amendments were effective.
2. The “notwithstanding” clause of the compensation statutes, Minn. Stat. § 3.7394, subd. 5(a) (2010), clearly and manifestly expresses legislative intent to retroactively revive the State’s cause of action for statutory reimbursement that was previously extinguished by the statute of repose in Minn. Stat. § 541.051.
3. The reimbursement provision of the compensation statutes, Minn. Stat. § 3.7394, subd. 5(a) (2010), does not violate appellant’s constitutional right to due process by reviving a cause of action for statutory reimbursement previously extinguished by the statute of repose.
4. The compensation statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 3.7391-.7395, do not result in a substantial impairment of the contract between the State and appellant because the State was not contractually obligated to assert sovereign immunity as a defense to the claims of the individual plaintiffs.
5. Pursuant to the “notwithstanding” clause of Minn. Stat. § 3.7394, subd. 5(a), the State is not barred by either Pierringer releases or the common law doctrine of voluntary payments from asserting its statutory reimbursement claim against appellant.
Affirmed. Justice Christopher J. Dietzen
Concurring, Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
Concurring, Justice David R. Stras.
