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