# State Ex Rel. Foster v. Naftalin > Supreme Court of Minnesota · January 20, 1956 · 246 Minn. 181 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661115 ## Case - **Full name:** State Ex Rel. Charles Foster v. Arthur Naftalin and Others - **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota - **Decided:** January 20, 1956 - **Citations:** 246 Minn. 181; 74 N.W.2d 249; 1956 Minn. LEXIS 504 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Gallagher - **Judges:** Knutson, Murphy, Gallagher - **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661115 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that "[t]he questions actually before the court and argued by counsel are thoroughly investigated, deliberately considered with care, and, when so investigated and considered, a decision on those issues is entitled to respect in future cases," and that "[o]biter dictum… - explaining that when “two or more issues are before the court and are argued by counsel, and the court places its decision on both even though a decision on one issue might have been sufficient to dispose of the case, the decision is equally binding as to both issues” - stating that obiter dicta are “expressions in a court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases” - stating dicta “generally is considered to be expressions in a court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases.” - explaining that a decision on "the precise question" presented, argued, and considered in an opinion is not dicta ## Opinion text Thomas Gallagher, Justice (dissenting). I am of the opinion that our decisions in Bull v. King, supra, and Freeman v. Goff, supra, should be overruled as against the trend of modern authority and that we should adopt what has been designated as the “rule of severability.” Thereunder, an enactment of the legislature, some minor section of which contains a material variation from that signed by the Governor, would not be held invalid as to those sections to which the variance had no relation, and which therefore could be fully executed on the basis of the specific language thereof. Under this rule, if applied in the instant case, L. 1955, c. 857, with its numerous provisions designed to streamline and modernize many of our state departments, would for the most part become operative, and the vast amount of time, study, and effort expended by our legislature as well as by the experts consulted in drafting the bill would not be lost. Certainly, those sections of the bill which are unrelated to the sections in which the variance has been discovered cannot be said to have failed to meet the constitutional prerequisites for the enactment of legislation. See, Rice v. Road Impr. Dist. 142 Ark. 454 , 221 S. W. 179 ; Ford v. Plum Bayou Road Impr. Dist. 162 Ark. 475 , 258 S. W. 613 ; Gwynn v. Hardee, 92 Fla. 543 , 110 So. 343 ; People ex rel. Honore v. Olsen, 222 Ill. 117 , 78 N. E. 23 ; People ex rel. Brady v. LaSalle Street T. & S. Bank, 269 Ill. 518 , 110 N. E. 38 ; State ex rel. Williams v. Robb, 163 Kan. 502 , 183 P. (2d) 223 ; Berry v. Baltimore & Drum Point R. Co. 41 Md. 446 , 20 Am. R. 69; State ex rel. Casper v. Moore, 37 Neb. 13 , 55 N. W. 299 ; Cancilla v. Gehlhar, 145 Ore. 184 , 27 P. (2d) 179 ; In re House of Representatives, 45 R. I. 289, 120 A. 868 ; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Platt, 2 S. C. 150, 16 Am. R. 647; City of Nashville v. Browning, 192 Tenn. 597 , 241 S. W. (2d). 583; State ex rel. Board of Commrs. v. Wright, 62 Wyo. 112 , 163 P. (2d) 190 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661115. Public record. Not legal advice.