Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minnesota Power & L. Co. v. Personal Prop. Tax, Etc., 182 N.W.2d 685.

26 citing documents.

Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Minn. 2024
Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Minn. 2024
No. 695, d 685, 689 (Minn. 1970), and may be used to help ascertain “the intention of the legislature,” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).
In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeal by Nobility Home Health Care, Inc. A21-1477, … Minn. 2024
In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeal by Nobility Home Health Care, Inc. A21-1477, … Minn. 2024
No. 695, and may be used to help ascertain “the intention of the legislature,” see Minn. Stat. § 645.16(8) (2022).
Minn. 2022
No. 695, (stating that an agency’s interpretation of a statute is ordinarily “entitled to weight .
Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of Revenue 676 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2004
Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of Revenue 676 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2004
No. 695, 289 Minn. 64, 75 , (concluding that electricity is a “manufactured, marketable product” under Minn.Stat.
In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits 642 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits 642 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Minn. Power & Light Co. v. Taxing Dist., City of Fraser, 289 Minn. 64, 71 , (commissioner has no power to change statute and if meaning is unambiguous, he must give effect to plain language used by legislature).
Northern States Power Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 571 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1997
Northern States Power Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 571 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1997
No. 695, 289 Minn. 64, 75 , (concluding that electricity is a “manufactured, marketable product” under Minn.Stat.
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
1 (1991); see also Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Taxing Disk No. 695, 289 Minn. 64, 70 , (agency interpretation may be helpful in ascertaining legislative intent when the agency is charged with administering the statute and interpretation has been long standing).
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch 477 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
While administrative agency interpretations may be helpful in ascertaining legislative intent in certain cases, see In re Answer of Minnesota Power & Light Co., 289 Minn. 64, 70 , (weight accorded agency interpretations where agency is charged with administering statute, especially if interpretation is longstanding), such a conclusion is not warranted by the record in this case.
Fingerhut v. Commissioner of Revenue 278 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1979
Fingerhut v. Commissioner of Revenue 278 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1979
The Fingerhuts also rely heavily on In re Answer of Minnesota Power & Light Co., 289 Minn. 64
Abex Corporation v. Commissioner of Taxation 207 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1973
Tabulating Service Bureau, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 204 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1973
Tabulating Service Bureau, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation 204 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1973
Accordingly, in answer to the third exemption requirement, we believe the processing of the customer data performed by taxpayer’s computer machines to be “action, operation, or work” necessary to produce a “product” within the ordinary meaning of that word as it was used in § 272.02(11) (b), and discussed in In re Answer of Minnesota Power & Light Co. 289 Minn. 64, 74
Transport Leasing Corporation v. State 199 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1972
Transport Leasing Corporation v. State 199 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1972
291 Minn. 241, 245 , In re Answer of Minnesota Power & Light Co. 289 Minn. 64
Lifson v. Commissioner of Taxation 195 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1972
Lifson v. Commissioner of Taxation 195 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1972
In re Answer of Minnesota Power & Light Co. 289 Minn. 64 , Wallace v. Commr.
Minnesota Microwave, Inc. v. Public Service Commission 190 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1971
Minnesota Microwave, Inc. v. Public Service Commission 190 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1971
Recently, in In re Minnesota Power & Light Co. 289 Minn. 64, 70 , 182 N. W. (2d) 685, 689 , Mr. Chief Justice Knutson observed: “It is contended by appellant that the commission’s interpretation of the statute is entitled to weight.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by