Cited by

A mandatory provision is one that “express[es] specific consequences for noncompliance.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Johnson v. Cook County , (reaffirming this definition).

Hans Hagen Homes, d 536, 540 (Minn. 2007); see also Am.

To the contrary, supreme court caselaw “recognizes that a statute may contain a requirement but provide no consequence for noncompliance, in which case we regard the statute as directory, not mandatory.” Hans Hagen Homes

See Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista , (stating that the purpose of section 15.99, subdivision 2, “was to establish deadlines for local governments to take action on zoning applications” (quotation omitted)).

The supreme court has stated that the use of “shall” in a statute may be interpreted as directory—and not mandatory—if the statute “provide[s] no consequence for noncompliance.” Hans Hagen Homes, ( see also Wenger v. Wenger, 274 N.W.

2, as the “automatic approval penalty.” Hans Hagen Homes, - 38 (Minn. 2007).

(“[O]ur case law recognizes that a statute may contain a requirement but provide no consequence for noncompliance, in which case we regard the statute as directory, not mandatory.”) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd.

16 (2 020) (stating that “‘[s]hall’ is mandatory”); but cf. Hans Hagen Homes, (addressing when a statute’s us e of “shall” is only directory, and not mandatory).

See Hans Hagen Homes, (noting that several rules of construction favored a narrow c onstruction of the subdivision 2(a) automatic approval provision).

Hans Hagen Homes , Inc. v. City of Minnetrista

“Where the legislature’ s intent is clearly discernible from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor per mitted and we apply the statute’ s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes

A “statute may contain a requirement but provi de no consequence for noncompliance, in which case we regard the statute as directory, not mandatory.” Hans Hagen Homes

Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista , 1 (Minn. 2007) (citing Lord v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 76, 3 (1961) (“[G]enerally[,] .

1 “[A] statute may contain a requirement but provide no consequence for noncompliance, in which case we regard the statut e as directory, not mandatory.” Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista

See generally, Hans Hagen Homes, d 536, 541 (Minn. 2007) (noting that statutes can use “shall” “in two different contexts[,]” distinguishing “shall” when a statute uses the word in its mandatory sense from a statute that uses the word in its directory sense, and stating that the court could not “imply from the word ‘shall’ that there would be specific b

Furthermore, the statute imposes a penalty for an insurer’s unreasonable denial of insurance benefits, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “statutes that are penal in nature are construed narrowly against the penalty.” Hans Hagen Homes

“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn. 2 Stat. § 645.16 (2014) (providing that when the language of a statute is “clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.”).

“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and [an appellate court] appl[ies] the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes

the statute requires a heightened standard akin to more formalized and committed types of relationships.” “Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is 3 neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008) (providing that when the language of a statute is “clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the p

“[A] statute may contain a requirement but provide no consequence for noncompliance, in which case we regard the statute as directory, not mandatory.” Hans Hagen Homes

“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernible from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes

“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernible from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes