Independent School Dist. No. 581, Edgerton v. Mattheis
| Citation | 147 N.W.2d 374,275 Minn. 383 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 40184--40186,L,No. 582,No. 670,H,J,No. 667,582,670,667,s. 40184--40186 |
| Parties | INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 581, EDGERTON, Minn., Appellant, Independent School Districtasper, Minn., Plaintiff, v. Duane J. MATTHEIS, Commissioner of Education of Minnesota, Independent School Districtuverne, Minn., Independent School Districtardwick, Minn., Harvey Eitreim, County School Administrator, Rock County, Minn., Ray Koehn, County Auditor, Rock County, Minn., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Syllabus by the Court
School districts are quasi-municipal corporations and the creatures of statute, enjoying only the rights expressly conferred on them by the legislature. They have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law which withholds from them other powers, nor are they denied due process of law by the refusal of the commissioner of education to conduct an agency hearing under Minn.St. 15.0411, subd. 4, before he acts on a petition for consolidation pursuant to § 122.23, subd. 6.
Peterson & Popovich and James E. Knutson, St. Paul, for appellant.
Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., Linus J. Hammond, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Comm. of Education.
Skewes & Vollmer, Luverne, for School Dist. 670 and 667.
Walter A. Tofteland, Luverne, for Eitreim & Koehn.
Appellant seeks review of orders of the district court dismissing the complaint in a declaratory judgment action brought by it and another school district, as parties affected by a proposed school consolidation, to establish their right to 'an agency hearing' before the commissioner of education.
In December 1964, an application was presented to the Minnesota Department of Education for approval of a plat consolidating Hardwick School District No. 667 with Luverne School District No. 670, pursuant to Minn.St. 122.23, subd. 6. The following month applications were received by the department proposing consolidations between Edgerton School District No. 581 and a portion of Hardwick District and subsequently between Jasper School District No. 582 and a portion of Hardwick. Counsel for Edgerton and Jasper on February 10, 1965, requested the Department of Education to grant them a hearing on these three proposals. Accordingly, on February 15 1965, a meeting was held at which (they) were permitted to present to the commissioner evidence in opposition to the proposal of the Luverne and Hardwick Districts and in support of their own proposals. On the same day the former consolidation was approved and those proposed by Edgerton and Jasper rejected.
Thereafter they brought this action praying for a determination that the Administrative Procedure Act required the commissioner of education to afford them a hearing and declaring null and void the action of the commissioner purporting to approve one consolidation and rejecting the others. 1 Upon the motion of defendants the complaint was dismissed on the ground it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Edgerton appealed.
Succinctly stated, it is the contention of appellant that because it advocated one consolidation and opposed another the rights and privileges of the adverse parties are required as a matter of due process to be determined only after an agency hearing. Appellant asserts that as a practical matter the hearing afforded by Minn.St. 127.25 on appeal to the district court from a final order of the commissioner is ineffective because it is limited to a determination of whether the action taken was within the commissioner's jurisdiction or was arbitrary, fraudulent, capricious, oppressive, or in unreasonable disregard of the interests of the territory affected. The only meaningful remedy available to it, appellant argues, is an opportunity to influence the judgment of the commissioner before he exercises it. To that end, appellant seeks a hearing before the commissioner at which it will be confronted by witnesses opposing its position; have a right to cross-examine them and rebut their testimony; be apprised of the evidence and expertise on which the commissioner will rely in rendering a decision; and have available a record and a transcript of all the proceedings and evidence which will influence the outcome. However reasonable and desirable these procedures may be, the only question now before us is whether or not the statute requires the commissioner to accord appellant the rights it demands. The following statute applies:
§ 15.0411. 'Subdivision 1. For the purposes of sections 15.0411 to 15.0422 the terms defined in this section have the meanings ascribed to them.
Since it is conceded that there is no authority in § 122.23, subd. 6, for an agency hearing, it is a necessary prerequisite to determining appellant's legal rights, duties, and privileges only if it is required by the due process provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions. The appellant vigorously asserts that because it was not litigated below the defendants have no right to question in this court appellant's standing to raise the constitutional issue thus presented. It is true the matter was neither briefed nor argued in a way which squarely brought it to the attention of the trial court. Defendants did state that 'the complaint conclusively shows that plaintiffs do not have capacity to maintain this action,' contending that the right to intervene did not give them the right to maintain a direct action. While it is questionable whether this properly framed the issue, we will nevertheless consider it because we believe it to be of basic importance to a proper consideration of the appeal.
We are unable to find any authority, and none is called to our attention, granting one arm of government a constitutional right to adjudicate in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnesota State Bd. of Health by Lawson v. City of Brainerd
... ... 347, 350, 88 S.Ct. 507, 510, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 581 (1967); and Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, ... Independent School Dist. No. 581 ... Page 634 ... v ... ...
-
Waters v. Putnam
...to establish a watershed district are not 'contested' within the meaning of § 15.0411, subd. 4. They cite Independent School Dist. No. 581 v. Mattheis, 275 Minn. 383, 147 N.W.2d 374, as authority for this proposition. In that case this court held that school districts which would be affecte......
- State ex rel. Duhn v. Tahash, 40125
-
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council, s. 45943
...the EQC granted an adequate hearing in this case. The 'contested case' requirement was interpreted in Independent School District No. 581 v. Mattheis, 275 Minn. 383, 147 N.W.2d 374 (1966), in which this court said that where a hearing is required, the matter is a 'contested case.' Because w......