# Brayton v. Pawlenty

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 5, 2010 · 781 N.W.2d 357

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661572

## Case

- **Full name:** Deanna BRAYTON, Et Al., Respondents, v. Tim PAWLENTY, Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** May 5, 2010
- **Citations:** 781 N.W.2d 357; 2010 Minn. LEXIS 235; 2010 WL 1780074
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dietzen
- **Judges:** Magnuson, Anderson, Paul, Gildea, Barry, Dietzen
- **Cited by:** 46 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/9661572

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, “[b]ecause the legislative and executive branches never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010-11 biennium, use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the [unallotment] statute”
- noting that the “Legislature has the primary responsibility to establish the spending priorities for the state through the enactment of appropriation laws” (citing Minn. Const, art. IV, § 22; Minn. Const, art. XI, § 1)
- noting that the line-item veto power “must be construed narrowly to prevent usurpation of the Legislature’s proper authority”

## Opinion text

DIETZEN, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Gildea.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661572. Public record. Not legal advice.