Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

After Washington County assessed the value of one of properties owned by Kohl's Department Stores for the years 2007-2009, Kohl's challenged the valuation. The tax court adjusted the County's assessment by increasing the valuations for 2007 and 2008 and decreasing the valuation for 2009. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the tax court not err (1) by failing to adjust its capitalization rate to account for the property taxes paid by the owner on vacant space and for the neighborhood's excessive vacancy; and (2) when it calculated the property's fair market rent using comparable leases rather than a percentage of retail sales method. View "Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. v. County of Washington" 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

Appellant in this case was a nine-year-old boy with severe autism, epilepsy, and chronic seizures. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) found that Appellant was not dependent in "mobility" and therefore reduced his authorized personal care assistant (PCA) services covered through the Minnesota Medical Assistance program. The district court reversed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that Minn. Stat. 256B.0659 did not require Appellant to be physically incapable of mobility to be eligible for covered services. The court of appeals reversed because Appellant was physically able to begin and complete moving from place to place without assistance. At issue was whether a person who is physically able to move without assistance but lacks the ability to direct his movement to a specific location has a dependency in mobility under the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commissioner's interpretation of the statute was supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of "mobility." View "A.A.A. v. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Department of Revenue audited Relator and assessed Relator for the amount of sales tax he collected from his customers but failed to remit to the State. The Commissioner of Revenue (Commissioner) adjusted the initial assessment and assessed tax. The tax court upheld the Commissioner's assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Plaintiff submitted to the Commissioner documents and an informal request for a refund based on his repayment of sales tax to his customers. The Commissioner responded to Relator by letter, in which he denied Plaintiff's request for a refund. Plaintiff appealed to the tax court. The tax court concluded it lacked subject matter over the appeal, holding that the Commissioner's letter was not an appealable order of the Commissioner because it was merely administrative correspondence. However, the court also denied Relator's claim for a refund. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the tax court's decision as to its jurisdiction, holding that the Commissioner's consideration of Relator's refund claim was a final decision on the claim that could be appealed; and (2) affirmed the tax court's decision on the merits of Relator's refund claim, holding that Relator's arguments either lacked merit or were barred by res judicata. View "Schober v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his ex-wife both claimed their two children as dependents on their state individual income tax returns. The Minnesota Department of Revenue determined that only Plaintiff's ex-wife was entitled to claim the children as dependents and that Plaintiff had underpaid his state taxes. Plaintiff appealed. The extended deadline for filing Plaintiff's notice of appeal was December 27. On December 22, Plaintiff mailed his notice of appeal to the tax court and the Department of Revenue. The Department received the notice on December 27, but the notice sent to the court was marked by the court as filed on December 28. The The tax court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Plaintiff had not timely filed his notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the mailbox rule does not extend to statutorily created rights of appeal; and (2) Plaintiff failed to present direct evidence in support of his assertion that his notice of appeal arrived on December 27. View "Harbaugh v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law