Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 184 N.W.2d 588.

136 citing documents.

Jeremy McNitt, Relator v. Minnesota IT Services (MNIT) Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jeremy McNitt, Relator v. Minnesota IT Services (MNIT) Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Id.; see also Wallace v. Comm’n of Tax’n, (noting that the legislature grants discretion, but commissioners do not have “authority to determine what the law shall be or to supply a 16 substantive provision of the law which he thinks the legislature should have included in the first place”).
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Tax’n, (determining that courts cannot supply language that the legislature did not use); (relying on this aspect of Wallace); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 93 (2012) (asserting that under the
Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
in support of its argument.
Kelly Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To argue that the nondelegation principle applies here, appellants rely on Wallace v. Comm’r of Tax’n
L. M. P., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This court may not supply “that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, d 588, 594 (Minn. 1971).
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wallace v. Comm'r of Taxation , 289 Minn. 220 , , 594 (1971).
Gist v. Atlas Staffing, Inc. 910 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2018
Gist v. Atlas Staffing, Inc. 910 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2018
See Wallace v. Comm'r of Taxation , 289 Minn. 220 , , 594 (1971) ("[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.").
A17-1096 Minn. 2018
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation , (“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child, Minn. 2018
(“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” (quoting Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, )).
State of Minnesota v. Letrell Pierre Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Letrell Pierre Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230, (stating the “well-established” rule “that courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , -94 (1971).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
at 591 (quoting Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , ).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
However, “courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
Rahn's Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., ELI Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rahn's Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., ELI Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230, (“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , (stating that “courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , (reiterating the established principle that “courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
We “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , (citations omitted).
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
See Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, see also Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
Meyer v. Nwokedi 777 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2010
Meyer v. Nwokedi 777 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2010
And “courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits.” Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 711 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 711 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
And this court “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
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
In interpreting statutes, a court “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
Vossen v. Parker 609 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vossen v. Parker 609 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
No. 261, (quoting Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , ).
E.N. v. Special School District No. 1 603 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
E.N. v. Special School District No. 1 603 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
A well-referenced canon of statutory construction stipulates that “courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently *349 overlooks.” Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
State v. Jones 587 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Jones 587 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
It is axiomatic that, when interpreting a statute, we “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Further, a court may not read into a statute a provision that the legislature “purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n v. County of Hennepin, -17 (Minn.1997) (quoting Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , ).
Estate of Peterson 579 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by