11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Chisago City v. Poultergreen2 sentences1984In City of Chisago City v. Poulter, 342 N.W.2d 167, 169 (Minn.App.1984), this Court held that non-receipt of the notice of the assessment hearing constituted reasonable cause. 1984In City of Chisago City v. Poulter, 342 N.W.2d 167 (Minn.App.1984), we held that nonreceipt of the written notice of assessment hearing was reasonable cause for failing to timely object. | 1 | 2 |
Robinette v. Pricegreen2 sentences2016Clearly, this statute places appeals from assessments within the “classes of cases” over which district courts have “adjudicatory authority,” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 455 , 124 S.Ct. 906 ; see also Giersdorf, 820 N.W.2d at 20 (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s statutory and constitutional authority to hear a “particular class of actions” (quoting Robinette, 214 Minn. at 526 , 8 N.W.2d at 804 )). 2016Clearly, this statute places appeals from assessments within the “classes of cases” over which district courts have “adjudicatory authority,” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 455 , 124 S.Ct. 906 ; see also Giersdorf, 820 N.W.2d at 20 (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s statutory and constitutional authority to hear a “particular class of actions” (quoting Robinette, 214 Minn. at 526 , 8 N.W.2d at 804 )). | 1 | 1 |
Giersdorf v. A & M Construction, Inc.green1 sentence2016Clearly, this statute places appeals from assessments within the “classes of cases” over which district courts have “adjudicatory authority,” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 455 , 124 S.Ct. 906 ; see also Giersdorf, 820 N.W.2d at 20 (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s statutory and constitutional authority to hear a “particular class of actions” (quoting Robinette, 214 Minn. at 526 , 8 N.W.2d at 804 )). | 1 | 1 |
Southdale Circle Partnership v. County of Hennepingreen2 sentences2011Thus, a taxing authority has no avenue under the statute to bring an express counterclaim in an assessment challenge. 424 N.W.2d at 537 (emphasis added). 2011We further noted that if section 278.05 were “construed to give rise to an implied counterclaim in the taxing authority, a taxpayer who does nothing would be in a superior position to one who asserts the right to question the valuation.” 424 N.W.2d at 538 . | 1 | 1 |
Shortridge v. Daubneygreen1 sentence1988Id. at 847 (Foley, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Sievert v. City of Lakefieldgreen1 sentence1984An aggrieved property owner must “object before the city council to preserve one’s right to appeal.” Sievert v. City of Lakefield, 319 N.W.2d 43, 44, n. 3 (Minn.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Knott v. City of Spokane
neutral
2 sentences2015In the Washington case, the court held that oral objections voiced at an assessment hearing, which were reduced to writing and included in the transcript of the city council hearing, amounted to substantial compliance with the written-objection requirement, and the superior court had jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment appeal. 3 Indian Trunk Sewer System, 666 P.2d at 379-80 . 1984In re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer System, 35 Wash.App. 212 , 666 P.2d 378 (1983), the court of appeals held that oral objections voiced at an assessment hearing, which were reduced to writing and included in the transcript of the city council, was substantial compliance with the written objection requirement and the superior court had jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment appeal. | 2 | 1984–2015 |
Kontrick v. Ryan
green
2 sentences2016Clearly, this statute places appeals from assessments within the “classes of cases” over which district courts have “adjudicatory authority,” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 455 , 124 S.Ct. 906 ; see also Giersdorf, 820 N.W.2d at 20 (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s statutory and constitutional authority to hear a “particular class of actions” (quoting Robinette, 214 Minn. at 526 , 8 N.W.2d at 804 )). 2016Clearly, this statute places appeals from assessments within the “classes of cases” over which district courts have “adjudicatory authority,” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 455 , 124 S.Ct. 906 ; see also Giersdorf, 820 N.W.2d at 20 (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s statutory and constitutional authority to hear a “particular class of actions” (quoting Robinette, 214 Minn. at 526 , 8 N.W.2d at 804 )). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights
green
1 sentence2016McCullough, 868 N.W.2d at 727 ; see also Minn.Stat. §§ 429.061, subd. 2, 429.081 (2014) (requiring a “written objection” to appeal the amount of an assessment). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Peterson v. City of Inver Grove Heights
green
2 sentences2015In Peterson , an aggrieved landowner appealed an assessment adopted by the municipality after she failed to appear at the assessment hearing and failed to file a written objection. 345 N.W.2d at 275-76 . 2015The issue before this court was whether the landowner’s “personal belief that the assessment she received did not apply to her property constitute^] ‘reasonable cause’ for failing to timely object to the assessment.” Id. at 276 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR
green
2 sentences2001Programmed Land, 602 N.W.2d at 904-05 . 2001Programmed Land, 602 N.W.2d at 904-05 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Habel v. City of Chisago City
green
2 sentences1987In Habel v. City of Chisago City, 346 N.W.2d 668 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), a municipality's failure to comply with the literal provisions of Minn.Stat. § 429.061, subd. 1 (1982) did not automatically render its notice of an assessment hearing defective. 1987In Habel v. City of Chisago City, 346 N.W.2d 668 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), a municipality’s failure to comply with the literal provisions of Minn.Stat. § 429.061, subd. 1 (1982) did not automatically render its notice of an assessment hearing defective. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
In re Appeal of Meyer from Confirmation of Paving Assessment
green
1 sentence1984In In re Meyer, 158 Minn. 433 , 199 N.W. 746 (1924), the landowner was not provided notice of the original improvement hearing, but did receive notice of and appear at the subsequent assessment hearing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Spencer v. Merchant
green
1 sentence1901The principles thus announced do not seem to be in conflict with those declared in Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45 , 18 Sup. Ct. 521, and Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 , 8 Sup. Ct. 921. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Parsons v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1901The principles thus announced do not seem to be in conflict with those declared in Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45 , 18 Sup. Ct. 521, and Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 , 8 Sup. Ct. 921. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.