Minnesota Supreme Court, 1982

Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board v. Graff

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 2, 1982 · Kelley

321 N.W.2d 53; 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1621 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., and Jane Prohaska, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for appellant., Alan L. Mitchell, County Atty., and Mary L. Peterson, Asst. County Atty., Duluth, for respondent., Halverson, Watters, Bye, Downs & Maki, Don L. Bye and Jeanne M. Forneris, Duluth, for AFSCME Councils 3, 6, 65, 91, and 96 amicus curiae.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 179.63 — amended 1984 (since repealed)
Minn. Stat. § 401.01 — amended 1985
Minn. Stat. § 471.59 — amended 1983

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Judge of the Aitkin County Court, fired his probation officer by order pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 260.311, subd. 1(1) (1978), which provides for court appointment of probation officers “to serve during the pleasure of the court.” Respondent, Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, established by Aitkin and five other counties under Minn.Stat. § 401.01 et seq. (1978) (Community Corrections Act) and Minn. Stat. § 471.59 (1978) (Joint Powers Act), sought a declaratory judgment that appel-. lant’s order be declared void in violation of respondent’s and its employees’ contractual and statutory employment rights. The trial court, upon stipulated facts, found appellant’s order invalid as “contrary to the employment agreement and collective bargaining agreement that exists between [the probation officer] and his employer Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board.”

Affirmance of the trial court ruling is controlled by General Drivers, Local # 346, for Itself and on Behalf of Dennis Murdock v. Aitkin County Board, et al., 320 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 1982). A county court’s authority to discharge probation officers under section 260.311, subd. 1(1) is modified by Minn.Stat. § 179.63, subd. 4 (1980) and is subject to the employee’s rights under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Public Employees Labor Relations Act.

Affirmed.

KELLEY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.