Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Board, 242 N.W.2d 837.

29 citing documents.

In the Matter of Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc., d/b/a Baywood Home Care. Minn. 2019
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 421
In the Matter of Administrative Order Issued to Wright Cnty. 784 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In the Matter of Administrative Order Issued to Wright Cnty. 784 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 421
L & D Trucking v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 600 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
L & D Trucking v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 600 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
4 (1998); see also Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 421 , (stating that MAPA requires formal adoption of rules only when intended to have force and effect of law).
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 421
Faribault County v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 472 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Faribault County v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 472 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 420-21
Donovan Contracting of St. Cloud, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 469 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Donovan Contracting of St. Cloud, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 469 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The addendum interpreting 4 the statute was not merely “intended to implement existing law” as in Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 421 , 5 but rather was an interpretative rule that has “the force and effect of law.” Id.
Sa-Ag, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 447 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sa-Ag, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 447 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Board, 308 Minn. 418, 420-21
Shanlian v. State, Department of Human Services 417 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Shanlian v. State, Department of Human Services 417 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Board, 808 Minn. 418 , 421
Benson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Benson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Board, 308 Minn. 418, 421
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418, 421 , (public bulletin that restated the requirements of a properly promulgated rule was not a new rule subject to MAPA rulemaking procedures); Jones v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 301 Minn. 481
Wenzel v. Meeker County Welfare Board 346 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wenzel v. Meeker County Welfare Board 346 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
However, the manual lacks the legal authority of an interpretive rule since it was not promulgated according to the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act.
Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Novak 295 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1980
Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Novak 295 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1980
In Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Bd., 308 Minn. 418 , we characterized an internal office memo as a directive rather than a rule because it merely reminded county welfare agencies of validly promulgated Social Security regulations.
Murphy v. Hiniker 261 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1978
Murphy v. Hiniker 261 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1978
The instant case is controlled by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Steere v. State, Department of Public Welfare, Minn., and Wacha v. Kandiyohi County Welfare Board, Minn., , which held tax refunds to be available to offset need.
Steere v. State, Department of Public Welfare 243 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1976
Steere v. State, Department of Public Welfare 243 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1976
308 Minn. 418 , we held that this policy statement is not invalid as a violation of state rulemaking procedure.