09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The IIonorabtc Sucre Smith Minnesota House of Representatives October 2, 2003 Page 9 order for an administrative hearing not to usurp the distric need to lack judicial finality, and any ruling could not be en court.'9 If a hearing officer, who is not part of the distric administrative penalty, the hearing may be found to Alternatively a determination from an administrative hearin effect because the district court could not enforce it without cond There may also be Constitutional questions with administ officers or city courts for administrative penalties have not branch of the district court. Article Vl, § 1 of the Minnesota Co The judicial power of the state is vested in a sup appeals, if established by the legislature, a district courts, judicial officers and commissioners with juri district court as the legislature ?nay establish.41 court's jurisdiction, it would reed without a ruling from the court, hears a dispute on an ontravene Article Vl, § 3. may• be found to have no cting its own hearing.40 we penalties because hearing een established as an inferior tftution provides: erne court, a court of court and such other diction inferior to the Any administrative hearing would be conducted by a body that is neither inferior to the district court nor created by the legislature, Instead, hearing: would be heard and decided by a body completely outside the court system. While he parties may agree to such hearings, it appears that the any decision would not be fr m a court, judicial officer or commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court. In October 1980 the Minnesota Supreme Court Judicial PI report . to the legislature concerning whether the offices should be retained or abolished.42 The committee rec. abolished.43 In recommending the elimination of the committee was concerned that `judicial officers are not ju judging.' 1d The committee further explained: nning Committee submitted a f judicial officer and referee mmended that the offices be judicial officer position, the ages yet they are engaged in The Minnesota Constitution and fundamental organ zation of the judiciary contemplate courts stiffed with duly elected ,judg's, accountable to the public .. Simply stated, the argument is that "people have a right to a jud ge."45 The committee acknowledged that the judicial officer posit personnel to meet rising caseloads, but advised `•[c]as accommodated not by counties appointing judicial officers, judgeships.'A6 The comunittee also noted that elimination on provided additional judicial toad requirements should be .ut by the Legislature creating of the judicial officer position '9 See In re: Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Minn. 1999). 4o Id. `' Minn. Const, art. VI, § 1 (emphasis added) (Amended Nov. 2, 1982). 411 See St. Louis County v. Harris, No. C4 -01 -1487 (Minn. Aug. 21, 2003). 4' Id. 41 Id. (quoting Report or: the Use of Para - Judicial Person .::! in the Mim iota Courts (Oct.: , :980) at 12). 4s Id. °` Id. (quoting Committee Report at 13). - 2 4 -