Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, 368 N.W.2d 906.

48 citing documents.

In re: New American Development Center Appeal of MDE-NPS January through April 2022 Claims Disallowance Decision in the … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Our supreme court rejected a
Thomas Davison, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Welfare, d 906, 910 (Minn. 1985).
In re the Matter of: Verdell Fredrick Borth v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, Carver County Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Verdell Fredrick Borth v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, Carver County Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Charles Smida v. Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC, and third party v. John F. Vande Waa, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Charles Smida v. Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC, and third party v. John F. Vande Waa, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Welfare, (quotation omitted).
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Welfare, (quotation omitted).
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gurvin Femrite v. City of Lowry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Welfare, (quotation omitted).
Nelson v. Commissioner 822 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 2012
Nelson v. Commissioner 822 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 2012
Welfare, (quoting N. Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Ins.
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration 725 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Welfare, (stating that “those who deal with the [gjovernment are expected to know the law and may not rely on conduct by government agents that is contrary to law”).
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Welfare, (holding that Department of Public Welfare was not estopped from collecting funds when no affirmative representation was made but “impression” was left that doctor need not comply with payment).
Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey 612 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2000
Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey 612 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2000
State v. Ramirez 597 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ramirez 597 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Welfare, (holding Department of Public Welfare was not estopped from collecting funds where no affirmative representation was made but “impression” was left that doctor need not comply with authorization requirement).
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Welfare, (holding that the failure of department’s computer screening process to catch the unreimbursa-ble claims submitted by a physician did not entitle the physician to keep the erroneous reimbursements).
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Welfare, Saaf v. Duluth Police Pension Relief Ass’n, 240 Minn. 60 , Board ofEduc.
Frey v. Ramsey County Community Human Services 517 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Frey v. Ramsey County Community Human Services 517 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Application of Q Petroleum 498 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Application of Q Petroleum 498 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Contested Cases of Rem-Canby, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 494 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Contested Cases of Rem-Canby, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 494 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Weed v. Commissioner of Revenue 489 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Weed v. Commissioner of Revenue 489 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Donovan Contracting of St. Cloud, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 469 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Donovan Contracting of St. Cloud, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 469 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Welfare, -12 (Minn.1985); see also Minn.Stat.
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. 442 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. 442 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(emphasis added) (-93 (Minn.1980)).
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the supreme court described estoppel as: [A]n equitable doctrine addressed to the discretion of the court and * * * intended to prevent a party from taking unconscionable advantage of his own wrong by asserting his strict legal rights.
In Re the Contested Case of Emmanuel Nursing Home 411 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Contested Case of Emmanuel Nursing Home 411 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
To establish a claim of estoppel Emmanuel must prove that the Department “ ‘[M]ade representations or inducements, upon which [relator] reasonably relied, and that [relator] will be harmed if the claim of estoppel is not allowed.’ ” ().
Contested Case of Residential Alternatives, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 387 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Contested Case of Residential Alternatives, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 387 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Petition of Halberg Construction & Supply, Inc. 385 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Petition of Halberg Construction & Supply, Inc. 385 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the Minnesota Supreme Court described es-toppel as: an equitable doctrine addressed to the discretion of the court and * * * intended to prevent a party from taking unconscionable advantage of his own wrong by asserting his strict legal rights.