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).

(providing that this court “may not add words to a statute .

This interpretation is reasonable because the statute does not expressly prohibit waiver, and generally, “[w]e may not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.” 8

“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16; d 291, 293–94 (Minn. 2010).

ied the application”), aff’d as modified, Demolition Landfill Servs., (reversing district court’s dismissal of mandamus petition after city passed resolution denying special use permit following automatic approval of permit application), rev. denied (Minn. July 25, 2000)

(“We may not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.”).

But the Legislature did not include that limitation in the statute, and we may “not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.”

See, (stating that a statute is directory when it contains “a requirement but provide[s] no consequence for noncompliance” (quotation omitted) ).

(“We may not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.”).

If the statute is ambiguous, then we may “go beyond the language at issue to ascertain the intent of the Legislature.” −94 (Minn. 2010).

9 -96 (Minn. 2010) (“[T]he time deadline requirem ent in the second sentence and the written-reasons requirement in the third sentence of subdivision 2 are separate requirements.”).

Johnson v. Cook County , , 295 (Minn. 2010).

“We may not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.” (declining to interpret a statute so as to “effe ctively rewrite” it because that prerogative belongs to the legislature).

“Our caselaw has previously distingui shed between mandatory and directory [statutory] provisions.” Johnson v. Cook County

see also Minn. 5 Stat. § 15.99, subd.

A court “may not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.”).

Health Plan, Inc., d at 11

(rezoning); Calm Waters, LLC, d at 716 (subdivision application); Am.