Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Resident v. Noot, 305 N.W.2d 311.

49 citing documents.

Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
definitions of terms, to carry out th e purposes of sections 177.21 to 177.44, to prevent the circumvention or evasion of those sections, a nd to safeguard the minimum wage and overtime rates established by sections 177.24 and 177.25”); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16(8) (2020) (permitting reference to “legislative and administrative interpretations” of an ambiguous statute); (observing that in general, we defer “to an agency’s interpretation when the language subject to construction is so technic
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson, Appellants, vs. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“The state scheme, the Minnesota Medical Assistance program, is a part of the federal scheme, the federal Medicaid program.”).
In the Matter of a Petition for Decertification of an Exclusive Representative for Certain Employees of the State … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
at 516; see also Christensen v. Harris Cty., 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000) (“Auer deference is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous.”); (“We do not defer [to an agency interpretation] when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding.”).
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
(stating that deference to administrative interpretations of statutes is appropriate when the administrators have specialized expertise in the subject of the statute and the interpretation is of long standing).
In Re Hubbard 778 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 2010
In Re Hubbard 778 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 2010
792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965); ).
In Re Request for Issuance of the SDS General Permit MNG300000 769 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Request for Issuance of the SDS General Permit MNG300000 769 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater 731 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2007
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater 731 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2007
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Id.; (stating that we do not defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rule when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding).
Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Id.; (stating that we do not defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rule when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Commissioner of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 696 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Commissioner of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 696 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
McEa v. Mpca 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
McEa v. Mpca 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
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
While deference is afforded to regulations on technical issues, this court reviews construction of a rule of procedure de novo.
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Holbrook v. State Gambling Control Board 532 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Holbrook v. State Gambling Control Board 532 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ross v. State, Department of Human Services 469 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Ross v. State, Department of Human Services 469 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(court defers to agency’s interpretation when statutory language is subject to technical construction and only a specialized agency has the experience and expertise needed to understand it).
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 437 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1989
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 437 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1989
792, 801 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965)
State ex rel. Bouza v. Gregg 435 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State ex rel. Bouza v. Gregg 435 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Although generally a court will defer to an agency’s interpretation of a technical rule that requires the agency’s expertise in applying it, courts will not defer “when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding.”
Contested Case of Ebenezer Society v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 433 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Contested Case of Ebenezer Society v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 433 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
As a general rule, we must defer to an “agency’s interpretation when the language subject to construction is so technical in nature that only a specialized agency has the experience and expertise needed to understand it, * * * when the language is ambiguous or when the agency interpretation is one of long standing.” (citations omitted).
Contested Case of Laura Baker School Ass'n v. Department of Human Services 377 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Contested Case of Laura Baker School Ass'n v. Department of Human Services 377 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
this court in-validated an agency policy precluding a nursing home from receiving third-party payments on behalf of a medical assistance recipient, finding that agency rules prohibited nursing homes only from requesting, not from receiving, such aid from third parties.
Contested Case of Richview Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare 354 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Contested Case of Richview Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare 354 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
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
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 344 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1984
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 344 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1984
-25 (Minn.1977); State ex rel.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by