DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moe v. University of Minnesota, 773 N.W.2d 77.

22 citing documents.

  • Raymond Semler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
    And in Langer v. Commissioner of Revenue, we stated that “statutory time limits for administrative appeals are to be ‘strictly construed,’ and that such time limits are ‘jurisdictional.’ ” 14 ().
  • Twin City Petroleum and Properties, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Langer v. Comm ’r of Revenue, ; see also Reynolds v. Minn .
  • Kyle William Brenizer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Langer [v. Comm’r of Revenue, ]”.
  • Minn. 2020
    The tax court’s application of law is reviewed de novo, Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, and the tax court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, Antonello v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 640, 647 (Minn. 2016).
  • Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus. Trust v. Cnty. of Anoka 931 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 2019
    Langer v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 80 (Minn. 2009).
  • A18-1679 A18-1681 Minn. 2019
    Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • Lake Country Power Coop. v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2018
    Hohmann v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 157 (Minn. 2010) ; Langer v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 80 (Minn. 2009).
  • A17-1479 A17-1481 Minn. 2018
    Hohmann v. Comm’r of Revenue, Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • Diane Phyllis Krekelberg, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“Appeal periods in statutory proceedings are peculiarly within the legislative domain, and the courts and administrative agencies have no power to extend or modify the periods of limitation prescribed by statute.”).
  • Gist v. Atlas Staffing, Inc. 910 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2018
    Langer v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 80 (Minn. 2009) (citing State v. Parker , 278 Minn. 53 , , 266 (1967) ).
  • A17-1096 Minn. 2018
    We have previously held that “the meaning of the term ‘filed’ is plain and means that the notice of appeal must actually be received within the statutory period.” Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, ().
  • Court Park Company, et al., Minn. 2018
    The civil rules apply to tax court proceedings, Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, but only to the extent that no conflict exists between the rules and the tax statutes.
  • Commissioner of Revenue, Relator v. Dahmes Stainless, Inc. 884 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 2016
    The legislature has set the filing deadline for tax appeals, and when the deadline expires, the tax court no longer has jurisdiction over the claim.” Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, (citations omitted).
  • Turner v. Commissioner of Revenue 840 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 2013
    § 271.10, subd.l (2012); see also, e.g., Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, , 80 (Minn.2009).
  • Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 834 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2013
    2 — the statutory provision at issue here — and concluded that “the meaning of the term ‘filed’ is plain and means that the notice of appeal must actually be received within the statutory period.” Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, (emphasis added).
  • Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
    Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • Harbaugh v. Commissioner of Revenue 830 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2013
    Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, -81 (Minn.2009).
  • Thole v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    However, “[a]ppeal periods in statutory proceedings are peculiarly within the legislative domain, and the courts and administrative agencies have no power to extend or modify the periods of limitation prescribed by statute.” Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, (citing Johnson v. Winthrop Labs.
  • Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
    *139 § 14.69(b); see also Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc., , 369 (Minn.2011) (interpreting the statute governing the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation court of appeals to determine whether court exceeded its jurisdiction); Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, (concluding that tax court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim because the party failed to comply with the statutorily created time limit to file an appeal).
  • Hohmann v. Commissioner of Revenue 781 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2010
  • Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    More recently, two taxpayers sought review of an assessment for unpaid income taxes.