# Fugina v. Donovan

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · September 9, 1960 · 259 Minn. 35

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696081

## Case

- **Full name:** Peter Fugina v. Joseph Donovan
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** September 9, 1960
- **Citations:** 259 Minn. 35; 104 N.W.2d 911; 1960 Minn. LEXIS 646
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Knutson
- **Judges:** Loevinger, Knutson, Murphy, Gallagher
- **Cited by:** 29 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/9696081

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that one objective of separate vote requirement is to “prevent imposition upon or deceit of the public by the presentation of a proposal which is misleading or the effect of which is concealed or not readily understandable”
- explaining that the separate vote requirement in the state constitution requires courts to assess whether there is a "rational relationship in purpose, plan, or subject of two or more propositions"
- noting, that in close cases, “the controlling consideration is the deference due the legislative judgment that this is a proper proposal to amend the constitution”

## Opinion text

Knutson, Justice
(concurring specially).
In deference to the opinions of a majority of my colleagues I reluctantly concur in the result. I can see no rational relationship between the two sections that would be amended by the adoption of this proposal. Obviously the people should have a right to express their opinions on each separately. I fear that what we are doing is to nullify Minn. Const, art. 14, § 1. However, amendments of whole articles of our constitution 7 have gone unchallenged in the past and rather than jeopardize what the people have heretofore approved it seems the lesser of two evils to uphold what is here proposed.
See, for instance, amendment of art. 6, proposed by L. 1955, c. 881, and adopted on November 6, 1956, which deals with the judiciary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696081. Public record. Not legal advice.