Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 698 N.W.2d 1.

69 citing documents.

Dennis Walsh v. City of Orono, Minnesota Minn. 2025
Dennis Walsh v. City of Orono, Minnesota Minn. 2025
See Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“[W]e will not add requirements to the statute beyond those specified by the legislature.”).
Resolution Non-Renewing Probationary Teaching Contract. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “must give effect to the plain meaning of statutory text when it is clear and unambiguous.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Benson Minn. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Benson Minn. 2024
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
But the Minnesota Legislature did not similarly limit the Act’s territorial scope, and “we will not add requirements to the statute beyond those specified by the legislature.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc., v. Comm’r of Rev.
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And we cannot graft this defense into the public-accommodations provisions of the MHRA because doing so would “encroach upon the right of the legislature to enact law by writing into a statute what the legislature did not.” (quotation omitted) (citing Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, ); (explaining that we do not interpret statutes “to include language which is clearly not there”); -91 (Minn. 2012) (declining to add language to 6 I appreciate the
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts “will not add requirements to [a] statute beyond those specified by the legislature.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Kelly Schneider, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children's Health ... Minn. 2023
Kelly Schneider, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children's Health ... Minn. 2023
For this proposition, the Schneiders cite Hutchinson Technology, and Willmus ex rel.
Kelly Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
They point to Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Perham Hospital District, Minn. 2022
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Medline Industries, Inc., Minn. 2020
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Metropolitan Council, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r 4 of Revenue
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 8 (Minn. 2005).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: Q. S. M. and T. R. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Even if such an expansive interp retation of the statutory best-interests policy were a reasonable interpretation, the canon of constitutional avoida nce should cause us to “interpret a statute to preserve its constitutionality.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
Ashland Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 899 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 2017
Ashland Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 899 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 2017
4(f); Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 883 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 883 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 2016
See Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“Administrative interpretations do not control our interpretation of a statute when the language of the statute is clear.
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Where possible,” appellate courts “should interpret a statute to preserve its constitutionality.” Hutchinson Tech.
State of Minnesota v. Krista Ann Muccio 881 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Krista Ann Muccio 881 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If at all possible, we are to interpret a statute to “preserve its constitutionality.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.17(3) (2014) (“[T]he legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this state.”).
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner 864 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner 864 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We are mindful of the canon of constitutional avoidance, which requires, if at all possible, the judiciary to interpret a statute to “preserve its constitutionality.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, see Minn. Stat. § 645.17(3) (2012) (“[T]he legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the 11 United States or of this state.”).
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The legislature may ultimately determine to amend the statute to achieve a result consistent with that reached by the district court but we will not encroach upon the right of the legislature to enact law by “writ[ing] into a statute what the legislature did not.” Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
); see also Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (interpreting a statute in a manner that was inconsistent with its plain language in order to avoid the conclusion that statute violated the Commerce Clause).
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
W.2d 160, 166 (Minn.App.2010), aff'd (“[W]e are bound to apply the law as written.”); (declining to adopt interpretation of statute amounting to revision because “[t]he prerogative of amending a statute in such a fashion belongs to the legislature, not to this *172 court”); Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (reiterating that courts may not write into a statute what legislature did not); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , , 638 (1963) (“If there is to be a change in the statute
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
In re Minnesota Power 807 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re Minnesota Power 807 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue
In re 2010 Gubernatorial Election 793 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 2010
In re 2010 Gubernatorial Election 793 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 2010
Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“We have repeatedly held that we must give effect to the plain meaning of statutory text when it is clear and unambiguous.”).
HMN Financial, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 782 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2010