Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator., 875 N.W.2d 321.

34 citing documents.

Hegenes Properties, LLC v. Michelle Rodriguez, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature.” Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue
Ashley Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
” Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue
Lee Michael Scheurer, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann ... Minn. 2025
Lee Michael Scheurer, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann ... Minn. 2025
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16(1), (4) (directing courts to ascertain legislative intent by examining “the occasion and necessity for the law” and “the object to be attained” by the law).
Cities Management, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2023
Cities Management, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2023
See Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, (concluding that the principle of construction that ambiguity is resolved in favor of taxpayers does not apply when, “after applying the statutory canons, the intent of the Legislature is not in doubt”).
Perham Hospital District, Minn. 2022
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue
Jeffrey S. Sheridan, et al., Minn. 2021
Although we may defer to an agency’s longstanding interpretation of ambiguous statutes and regulations, see Minn. Stat. § 645.16(8); Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, it is “the duty of our court—the Minnesota Supreme Court—to correctly read, interpret, and apply the text of Minnesota’s Constitution.” (Anderson, Paul, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
We presume that the “legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain,” Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2) (2018), and when a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, we look “beyond the text to determine legislative intent.” Marks C/D-2 v. Comm’r of Revenue
Cheryl L. Stinski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018); see Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue , d 321, 326 -28 (Minn. 2016) (applying factors in section 645.16); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2018) (setting forth canons of construction); Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2018) (setting forth presumptions in determining legislative intent).
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
See Marks v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 325 (Minn. 2016) (acknowledging the parties' plain-language arguments, but concluding that the statutory language is ambiguous).
Comm'r of Revenue v. Enbridge Energy, LP 923 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2019
Comm'r of Revenue v. Enbridge Energy, LP 923 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2019
Spannaus v. Hopf , , 752 (Minn. 1982) (quoting 1 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 5.03, at 299 (1958) ); see also Marks v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 327 (Minn. 2016) ("Administrative agencies may adopt regulations to implement or make specific the language of a statute.").
State v. Gosewisch 921 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gosewisch 921 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Marks v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 326 (Minn. 2016) (concluding that a tax statute was ambiguous because there was "temporal ambiguity between and among" the statute's requirements).
In re the Matter of Dahlgren Township, City of Carver and the Commissioner of the Office of Administrative … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue , see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016).
In Re the Matter of the Application of: John Doe for a Change of Birthdate to April 10, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
In the MATTER OF the Application of J.M.M. O/B/O Minors for a Change of Name 890 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the MATTER OF the Application of J.M.M. O/B/O Minors for a Change of Name 890 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016).
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin 886 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin 886 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
We begin our analysis “by determining whether the plain language of the statute clearly and unambiguously requires a particular result in this case.” Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC v. Les Nielsen 886 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2016
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC v. Les Nielsen 886 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2016
Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue
City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, Louisiana 883 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2016
City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, Louisiana 883 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2016
“When we interpret statutes, our objective is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.” Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014).
John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A statute is ambiguous if, as applied to the facts of the case, it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by