Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Commissioner of Revenue informed Sharon Soyka by a notice that it would file a tax return on her behalf for the 2008 tax year and asserting that Soyka owed $2,201 in income taxes, interest, and penalties. Exactly sixty-one days after the Commissioner mailed the notice, Soyka mailed her notice of appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court. The tax court dismissed Soyka’s appeal, concluding that it was untimely under Minn. Stat. 271.06(2), which generally requires a notice of appeal to be filed within sixty days after notice of an order by the Commissioner. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether, when the Commissioner serves notice of an order by United States mail, Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.05 extends the sixty-day statutory deadline for filing an appeal with the tax court. The Supreme Court reversed and directed the tax court to reinstate Soyka’s appeal, holding that Rule 6.05 applies and extends the statutory filing deadline by three days when the Commissioner serves the notice by United States mail. View "Soyka v. Comm’r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Relator was injured while attending a required training session at the general office of her employer. A workers’ compensation judge denied Relator’s claim for benefits, finding that Relator’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding that Relator’s injury arose out of the course of her employment, and therefore, her injury was compensable. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the decision of the compensation judge, holding that Relator did not meet her burden to prove her injury arose out of her employment, as required by statute. View "Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree driving while impaired (DWI). After receiving a notice advising him of the County’s intent to forfeit his vehicle pursuant to Minn. Stat. 169A.63, Appellant sought a judicial determination of the forfeiture, arguing that he was entitled to a portion of the value of the forfeited vehicle under the motor vehicle exemption, Minn. Stat. 550.37(12)(a). The district court granted summary judgment for the County on behalf of respondent vehicle, holding that the motor vehicle exemption does not apply when a vehicle is forfeited pursuant to section 169A.63. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither the motor vehicle exemption nor Minn. Const. art I, 12 applies to DWI forfeiture pursuant to section 169A.63. View "Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord" on Justia Law

After completing an audit of Taxpayers' joint income tax returns, the Commissioner of Revenue issued an order assessing additional taxes. That day, a revenue tax specialist sent Taxpayers an e-mail informing them of the existence of the order. The order was attached to the e-mail. Taxpayers claimed to have been unable to open the attachment containing the letter until sixty-six days after receiving the e-mail. The specialist claimed that he also sent the order by regular mail to Taxpayers' home address, but Taxpayers contended that a mailed copy of the order never arrived. Fifty-three days after Taxpayers opened the e-mail attachment and 119 days after they received the e-mail, Taxpayers filed an appeal with the tax court. The tax court dismissed the appeal as untimely, as it was filed after the sixty-day statutory deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the tax court's findings that sending the order to Taxpayers electronically and by regular mail was sufficient were not clearly erroneous; and (2) the methods by which the Commissioner sent the order did not violate Taxpayers' due process rights. View "Turner v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Through the exercise of its eminent-domain power, the County of Dakota acquired a commercial property owned by Appellant. Following an administrative hearing, three condemnation commissioners awarded Appellant $655,000 in damages. Appellant appealed, arguing that under Minnesota's minimum-compensation statute, he was entitled to an award of damages that would allow him "to purchase a comparable property in the community." The trial court concluded Appellant was entitled to $997,056 in damages after finding that certain property, which was located within the same city as the condemned property, qualified as a comparable property in the community under the statute. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was what qualified as a "comparable property" located in the same "community" as the condemned property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the phrase "comparable property" in the minimum-compensation statute refers to an existing property that has enough like characteristics or qualities to another property that the value of one can be used to determine the value of the other; and (2) the district court did not err when it determined that the disputed property qualified as a "comparable property in the community" of the condemned property. View "County of Dakota v. Cameron " on Justia Law

Appellant was a real estate firm that owned a vacant four-story building (the property) and sought to develop it into an office building. Before the Minneapolis City Council approved Appellant's site plan application, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission (Commission) nominated the property for designation as a local historic landmark. Appellant subsequently submitted an application for a certificate of appropriateness to the Commission. The City Council denied the application and subsequently designated the property as a local historic landmark. Plaintiff commenced this action against the City, alleging that the City violated Minn. Stat. 15.99(2)(a) by failing to approve or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness within sixty days. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that section 15.99(2)(a) did not apply to an application for a certificate of appropriateness. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an application for a certificate of appropriateness is a "written request relating to zoning" under section 15.99(2)(a), and because the City failed to approve or deny Appellant's application within sixty days, summary judgment for the City was not proper. Remanded. View "500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

In 2009, Minnesota Power sought an increase in service rates of approximately 18.9 percent. As part of its submission to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Minnesota Power also requested an interim rate increase of approximately $73.3 million. The Commission decided to set the interim rate increase at approximately $48.5 million after finding exigent circumstances existed. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the Commission did not err in finding exigent circumstances and did not abuse its discretion in setting interim rates. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision to set Minnesota Power's interim rate increase at $48.5 million. View "In re Application of Minn. Power for Auth. to Increase Rates for Elec. Serv. in Minn." on Justia Law

On June 6, 2013, the Green Party of Minnesota and its chair, Brian Begin, filed a petition asserting that Respondent Secretary of State Mark Ritchie erred in decertifying the Green Party as a minor political party. Petitioners sought an order from the Supreme Court to direct the Secretary to correct his alleged error by restoring the Green Party’s minor political party status as of January 1, 2013. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the Green Party’s claims fell outside the scope of the applicable statute. As such, the Court dismissed the petition. View "Begin vs. Ritchie" on Justia Law

The Commissioner of Revenue ordered Sharon Soyka to pay income taxes, penalties, and interest for the 2007 tax year. Soyka had sixty days to appeal the Commissioner's order to the tax court. Instead, Soyka filed her notice of appeal to the Commissioner, who forwarded the documents to the tax court. The tax court dismissed Soyka's appeal as untimely filed because Soyka did not file her notice of appeal until more than a month after it was due and because Soyka did not file a request seeking an extension of time. The Supreme Court affirmed the tax court's dismissal of Soyka's appeal, holding (1) Soyka's failure to file her notice of appeal before the expiration of the statutory deadline deprived the tax court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal; and (2) because the tax court did not receive a copy of Soyka's extension request until the statutory period had expired, Soyka was not entitled to an extension of time to file her appeal. View "Soyka v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Taxpayer was a trust fund that purchased property in Ramsey County. Taxpayer sought an exemption from taxation for the property on the basis that it was a "seminary of learning" and therefore exempt under Minn. Stat. 272.02(5). The County allowed an exemption for several years but later determined that the property was no longer exempt and assessed the property. Taxpayer subsequently filed a petition challenging the assessment. After the tax court denied Taxpayer's motion to amend or supplement its petition, Taxpayer sought certiorari review. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the tax court's order was not reviewable either as a final order under Minn. Stat 271.10 or in the interests of justice under Minn. R. App. P. 105.01. View "Metro. Sheet Metal Journeyman & Apprentice Training Trust Fund v. County of Ramsey" on Justia Law