DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue, 505 N.W.2d 612.

100 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no ‘rule of law’ which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on ‘superficial examination.’ Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (quoting United States v. Am.
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
    See Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, as amended on reh’g (Nov.
  • Jill M. Larsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Moreover, this court has an obligation to go beyond the literal language of a statute when a literal interpretation “leads to absurd results or unreasonable results which utterly depart from the purpose of the statute.” W egener v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • A18-1655 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (applying the absurdity canon when a statute’s plain meaning rendered much of the statute unconstitutional) .
  • Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 931 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2019
  • Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 931 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2019
    Wegener v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 617 (Minn. 1993) (applying the absurdity doctrine where the plain meaning of the statute at issue simultaneously rendered a large part of the statute unconstitutional and inoperative); see also Schatz , d at 651 (plain meaning of the statute must "utterly confound[ ]" the clear legislative purpose of the st
  • State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
    We have disregarded the plain language of a statute to avoid an absurd result just once, in Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue , a property-tax case.
  • State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
  • State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
    617 (Minn. 1993) (applying the absurdity doctrine where the plain meaning of the statute at issue simultaneously rendered a large part of the statute unconstitutional and inoperative); see also State v. Smith , , 125 (Minn. 2017) (noting that the absurdity canon applies in only "exceedingly rare" case
  • State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The state argues that even if the statute is not ambiguous, this is one of those rare cases where the plain meaning of the statute confounds the legislative purpose of the statute as in Wegener v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 617 (Minn. 1993).
  • In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2016); see Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (noting courts are obliged to reject a construction that leads to unreasonable results, which “utterly depart from the purpose of the statute”).
  • A16-1612 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Olson v. Ford Motor Co. , Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
    In that case, Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue, we concluded that applying the plain meaning of a property-tax-refund statute would have led “to absurd results or unreasonable results” that “utterly depart[ed] from the purpose of the statute.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Finally, respondent cites Wegener, which did apply the absurdity doctrine, but did so because a literal reading of the statute at issue would have rendered another statute largely inoperative and invalid “by giving it an unconstitutional effect.” Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, -17 (Minn. 1993).
  • State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
    Schatz, d at 651 ; see Wegener v, Comm'r of Revenue
  • 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
    rpret a statute according to its purpose rather than its plain meaning only in the “exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.” (quoting Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ); see Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 612, 617 (Minn. 1993).
  • George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2010) (“[T]he legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable.”); (recognizing our obligation to go beyond the plain language of the statute if a literal interpretation “leads to absurd results or unreasonable results which utterly depart from the purpose of the statute”).
  • Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
    to support the proposition that we are “obliged to reject a construction that leads to absurd results or unreasonable results which utterly depart from the purpose of the statute.” The maximum sentence for a person convicted of first-degree burglary is 20 years in prison.
  • State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
  • Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    § 645.17(l)-(2) (2006); Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue
  • State v. JRA 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. J.R.A. 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. J.R.A. 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    See Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (providing that courts *727 must “reject a construction that leads to absurd results or unreasonable results”).
  • State v. JRA 714 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (providing that courts *727 must "reject a construction that leads to absurd results or unreasonable results").
  • Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    § 645.17(1) (2004); (discussing need to avoid absurd result); Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (discussing need to avoid unreasonable result at variance with statute’s purpose).
  • Ittel v. Pietig 705 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Ittel v. Pietig 705 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Wegener v. *207 Comm’r of Revenue
  • Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (rejecting statutory construction leading to absurd result).
  • Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 691 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2005
  • Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 691 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2005
    4 is one such *828 “rare case” where we employed an absurdity analysis.
  • Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    § 645.17(1) (2002); Olson v. Ford Motor Co. , (discussing alleged absurdity); Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, (discussing- unreasonable result at variance with manifest intention).
  • State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003