Jennissen v. City of Bloomington

4 Citing cases

  1. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington

    913 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2018)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that the Legislature did not intend to occupy the field of organized waste collection and, thus, section 115A.94 did not preempt a proposed charter amendment on the City of Bloomington’s waste collection system

    The court of appeals agreed. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington , 904 N.W.2d 234, 243 (Minn. App. 2017). We granted review.

  2. Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis

    925 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In support, Graco relies on this court's statement in a recent decision that, generally, "the legislature's extensive regulation of a subject is evidence that the matter has become one solely of state concern." Jennissen v. City of Bloomington , 904 N.W.2d 234, 242 (Minn. App. 2017), rev'd , 913 N.W.2d 456. As an initial matter, that statement merely suggests that evidence of extensive regulation generally indicates implied preemption; it does not stand for the proposition that extensive regulation is always preemptive.

  3. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington

    A17-0221 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018)

    This court affirmed, holding that "[s]ection 115A.94 of the MWMA occupies the field of legislation regarding the process that a city must follow to establish a system of organized collection of solid waste," and that the district court therefore "properly determined that the MWMA preempts appellants' proposed city charter amendment to require advance voter approval of a municipality's statutory establishment of organized collection." Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 904 N.W.2d 234, 243 (Minn. App. 2017) (Jennissen I). This court also determined that "[b]ecause we agree with the district court on the preemption issue, we do not address appellants' additional request for a mandatory injunction and the other issues raised by the city on cross-appeal."

  4. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington

    A17-0221 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018)

    This court affirmed, holding that "[s]ection 115A.94 of the MWMA occupies the field of legislation regarding the process that a city must follow to establish a system of organized collection of solid waste," and that the district court therefore "properly determined that the MWMA preempts appellants' proposed city charter amendment to require advance voter approval of a municipality's statutory establishment of organized collection." Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 904 N.W.2d 234, 243 (Minn. App. 2017) (Jennissen I). This court also determined that "[b]ecause we agree with the district court on the preemption issue, we do not address appellants' additional request for a mandatory injunction and the other issues raised by the city on cross-appeal."