Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite The Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 17 N.W.2d 37.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, , 39 (Minn. 1944); Eberle v. Miller , 212 N.W.
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota caselaw provides that “the word and may be construed as a disjunctive where the sense of the statute plainly requires it.” Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
(noting that this court has long applied the maxim that when there is an express enumeration of the 7 persons or things to be affected by a particular provision, “there is an implied exclusion of others” (quoting Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463, )).
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
Second, we have long applied the maxim that when a statute “enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Where a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
County of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
County of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
Hannan v. City of Minneapolis 623 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hannan v. City of Minneapolis 623 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463-64 , (“[W]here the statute designates an exception, proviso, saving clause, or a negative, * * * the exclusion of one thing includes all others.” (citations omitted)).
Goplen v. Olmsted County Support & Recovery Unit 610 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Goplen v. Olmsted County Support & Recovery Unit 610 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
This result is inconsistent with the well-established rule that “[wjhere a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
A/AL, INC. v. City of Faribault 569 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
A/AL, INC. v. City of Faribault 569 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
This interpretation of the statute is in accord with the well-established rule that “[w]here a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , see also Minn.Stat.
Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 567 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 567 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , (“and” may be construed as a disjunctive where the sense of the statute plainly requires it, thereby changing “and” to “or”).
Brandt v. Hallwood Management Co. 560 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Brandt v. Hallwood Management Co. 560 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“Where a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , (citations omitted); Minn.Stat.
County of Morrison v. Litke 558 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Morrison v. Litke 558 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis 527 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 464 , (the exclusion of one thing includes all others).
In Re the Joint Petition of Rochester Express Limousine Service, Inc. 508 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Joint Petition of Rochester Express Limousine Service, Inc. 508 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , (where a statute specifies persons or things to be affected by its provisions, others are implicitly excluded).
Hewitt v. City of Montrose 488 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hewitt v. City of Montrose 488 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
4 (1988); see also Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , -40 (1944) (when a statute enumerates things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others).
State v. Harstad 397 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Harstad 397 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
” As expressed in Minnesota case law, “[wjhere a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
Pitkin v. Gross 385 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pitkin v. Gross 385 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463
Grain Belt Breweries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 243 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1976
Grain Belt Breweries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 243 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1976
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 464 , also is inapposite because it involved whether certain sales were made “through, from, or by offices, agencies, branches, or stores” within the taxing state.
Ralston Purina Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 236 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1975
Ralston Purina Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 236 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1975
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , we construed a provision which was substantially similar to clause (1)(a) of Minn. St.
Fridley Recreation & Service Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 194 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1972
Fridley Recreation & Service Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 194 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1972
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460
Tonka Corporation v. Commissioner of Taxation 169 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1969
Tonka Corporation v. Commissioner of Taxation 169 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1969
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460 , 17 N. W. (2d) 37 , we held that the income of the taxpayer from out-of-state orders made through its regional branch sales office in Minnesota, but approved at its home office outside the state, from which its merchandise was shipped, was taxable by Minnesota.
Western Auto Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 71 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1955
Western Auto Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 71 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1955
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460 , 17 N. W. (2d) 37 , since the sales made to dealer stores were made by, through, and from an office outside the state, and under our law these are not construed as Minnesota sales.
State Ex Rel. Grozbach v. Common School District No. 65 54 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1952
State Ex Rel. Grozbach v. Common School District No. 65 54 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1952
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460 , 17 N. W. (2d) 37 .
Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES'UNION LOCAL NO. 63, AFL 45 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1951
Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES'UNION LOCAL NO. 63, AFL 45 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1951
of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 463 , 17 N. W. (2d) 37, 40 , we stated: “* * * Where a statute enumerates the persons or things to he affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.
Marshall-Wells Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 20 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1945

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by