Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, 755 N.W.2d 713.

75 citing documents.

Resolution Non-Renewing Probationary Teaching Contract. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Servs., (noting that “must is mandatory” when determining a county’s obligation under a Minnesota Family Investment Program statute (quotation omitted)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K. and A. S., Parents 9 N.W.3d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K. and A. S., Parents 9 N.W.3d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Greene v. Commissioner of Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., -29 (Minn. 2008) (concluding that rational-basis review applies to equal- protection challenge to statute reducing government benefits for Indians who do not participate in tribal program); Krueth v. Independent Sch.
City of White Bear Lake, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “retain the authority to review de novo errors of law which arise when an agency decision is based upon the meaning of words in a statute.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Servs ., (explain ing that a federal block grant program replaced AFDC).
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health, in her Official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
aff’d, d 713 (Minn. 2008).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Shawn Froehlich. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(noting that “must” is mandatory).
Stacey Marable, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
A18-2095 A18-2159 A18-2163 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
cf. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018) (providing that court may consider administrative interpretations of ambiguous statutes).
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson, Appellants, vs. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As noted in Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., “welfare benefits are not a fundamental right and neither the State nor Federal Government is under any sort of constitutional obligation to guarantee minimum levels of support.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
15a (2018) (“‘Must’ is mandatory.” ); Greene v. Comm’r of Human Servs., (citing this definition).
State v. Holloway 916 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2018
State v. Holloway 916 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2018
Robert Atkinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We apply strict scrutiny to a legislatively-created classification that involves a suspect classification or a fundamental right.” Greene v. Commissioner of Minnesota Dep’t. of Human Servs .
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kimberly-Clark Corporation & Subsidiaries, Relators/Cross-Respondents v. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. 880 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2016
Kimberly-Clark Corporation & Subsidiaries, Relators/Cross-Respondents v. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. 880 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2016
We also presume that statutes are constitutional, Greer v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., the party that asserts otherwise bears a heavy burden to overcome that presumption.
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
The Commissioner’s interpretation of income tax statutes is entitled to deference, and we give great weight to longstanding agency interpretations of statutes the agency is charged with administering, see Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dept. of Human Servs., U.S. W. Material Res., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, , 20-21 & n. 2 (Minn.1994).
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota appellate courts have consistently recognized that, unlike the more deferential federal rational-basis test, the Minnesota test does not allow courts to “hypothesize a rational basis to justify a classification.” Russell, d at 889; see Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
Bio Wood Processing, LLC, Relator v. Rice County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bio Wood Processing, LLC, Relator v. Rice County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Greene v. Commissioner of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person 859 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2015
e classifications created by the Legislature.3 If an equal protection challenge under the Minnesota Constitution involves either a suspect classification or a fundamental right, we apply strict scrutiny, which requires the classification to be “narrowly tailored and reasonably necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.” See Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (quoting Hennepin Cnty.
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“‘Must’ is mandatory.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd.
In the Matter of the Duty Disability Benefits for Matthew Olson. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Duty Disability Benefits for Matthew Olson. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And an appellate court “retain[s] the authority to review de novo errors of law which arise when an agency decision is based upon the meaning of words in a statute.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., d 713, 721 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Randy Lee Oulman v. Wade Setter, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Greg Peterson, Relator v. Richfield Civil Service Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randy Lee Oulman v. Wade Setter, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
Greg Peterson, Relator v. Richfield Civil Service Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In doing so, our goal “is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., n.9 (Minn. 2008).
In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This clause has been described by our supreme court as a “mandate that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
Continental Hydraulics Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 832 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Continental Hydraulics Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 832 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In interpreting a statute, our goal “is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 832 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2013
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 832 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2013
Moreover, these programs are part of “a complex regulatory scheme that requires the technical expertise of the Commissioner to interpret and administer.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.
Harbaugh v. Commissioner of Revenue 830 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2013
Harbaugh v. Commissioner of Revenue 830 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2013
Before we conclude our analysis, it is worth acknowledging that the result reached in this case may appear harsh and, as we have noted, “[w]e are entitled to take any action as the interests of justice may require.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., , 725 n. 9 (Minn.2008) (citing Minn. R. Civ.App.
Weir v. ACCRA Care, Inc. 828 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Weir v. ACCRA Care, Inc. 828 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
This clause has been described by our supreme court as a “mandate that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (quotation omitted).
Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson 827 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson 827 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
This provision has been analyzed under the same principles used to analyze the guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that no state will “deny to any person *449 within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (quoting U.S. Const, amend.
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Greene v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., -25 (Minn.2008).
First National Bank v. Profit Pork, LLC 820 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2012