Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: Under Minnesota law, if there is no actual harm or threat to the public, must a rule or ordinance contain alternative measures to ensure no harm to the public occurs?
| Area of Law: | Administrative Law, Administrative Law & Regulation (Federal and State), Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Alternative measures; No harm to the public; Exaltation of form over substance |
| Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
| Cited Cases: | None |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 09/01/2014 |
Because there is no adverse impact on safety to begin with, proposing “alternative measures” to assure that there is “no harm to the public” is pointless, an unnecessary exaltation of form over substance. See United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 142 (1980) (“The exaltation of form over substance is to be avoided.”).
[…]