Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Green Giant Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 534 N.W.2d 710.

59 citing documents.

Brenda Thormodson v. Kathryn Rae Zehnder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Brenda Thormodson v. Kathryn Rae Zehnder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4725 v. City of Brainerd, (quotation omitted); see also Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 13 (“We will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
8 Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 9 Because the record supports the distri ct court’s determination that father substantially interfered with a substantial amou nt of parenting time, the district court did not err by awarding compensatory parenting time to mother.
In the Matter of Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim. Minn. 2020
Although the City’s policy arguments may have merit, when interpreting statutes, we “will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
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
2(c) ; see also Green Giant Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 712 (Minn. 1995) (noting that language incorporating a federal statute "speaks plainly" and the reference to "section 1804 without excluding subdivision (e)(4) " did not allow the court to omit that subdivision in resolving a dispute over the calculation of income (emphasis added)).
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Green Giant Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 712 (Minn. 1995).
Billion v. Commissioner of Revenue 827 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2013
Billion v. Commissioner of Revenue 827 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2013
As we have stated, when the “‘language of a[tax] statute is clear and unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.’ ” Amoco Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, -72 (Minn. 2003) (quoting Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, ).
In re the Welfare of M.K. 805 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of M.K. 805 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 790 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2010
HMN Financial, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 782 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2010
HMN Financial, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 782 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2010
Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 698 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2005
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 698 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2005
We uphold the tax court’s ruling “where sufficient evidence exists for the tax court to reasonably reach the conclusion it did.” Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (quoting Am.
Harris v. County of Hennepin 679 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2004
Harris v. County of Hennepin 679 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2004
Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Vandenheuvel v. Wagner 673 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Vandenheuvel v. Wagner 673 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Amoco Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue 658 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 2003
Amoco Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue 658 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 2003
Green Giant Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2002) (providing that courts shall not disregard the letter of the law *872 when a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous).
Baughman v. Mellon Mortgage Co. 621 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baughman v. Mellon Mortgage Co. 621 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
§ 47.204 to the contrary” because we may not “supply [to a statute] that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 607 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 607 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Thunder 605 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Thunder 605 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 598 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 598 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“ ‘No room for judicial construction exists when the statute speaks for itself.’ ” ().
Wybierala v. Commissioner of Revenue 587 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1998
Wybierala v. Commissioner of Revenue 587 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1998
U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Commissioner 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
US SPRINT COMM. v. Commissioner of Rev. 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
US SPRINT COMM. v. Commissioner of Rev. 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
[9] (stating "[w]e will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks"); State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (where failure of expression, rather than ambiguity of expression, constitutes vice of statute, courts are not free to substitute a
U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Commissioner 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
See Green Giant Co: v. Commissioner of Revenue, (stating ‘‘[w]e will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks”); State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (where failure of expression, rather than ambiguity of expression, constitutes vice of statute, courts are not free to substitute
Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co. 577 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1998
Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co. 577 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1998
Igel v. Commissioner of Revenue 566 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1997
Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue 566 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue 566 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
Igel v. Commissioner of Revenue 566 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1997
Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 561 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1997
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin 561 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1997
It did not and, in keeping with our limited role relative to legislative enactments, we decline to read into the statute a provision the legislature “purposely omits or inadvertently *517 overlooks.” (quoting Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 230 , ).
F-D Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 560 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1997
F-D Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 560 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1997