interpretive rule in Minnesota

1993Mapleton Community Home, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., 391 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Minn.1986) (quoting Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardward Ass’n v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.1979)).

1989Otto’s Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, 437 N.W.2d 35, 42 (Minn.1989) (citing Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Association v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.1979)).

2012Second, an interpretive rule that has not been properly promulgated may nonetheless be valid in two situations: “if the agency’s interpretation of a [statute] corresponds with its plain meaning, or if the [statute] is ambiguous and the agency interpretation is a longstanding one.” Cable Communications Bd., 356 N.W.2d at 667 .

2012In either situation, “the agency is not deemed to have promulgated a new rule,” id., and the agency’s interpretation is not invalid, “although it does not have the force and effect of law,” In re Contested Case of Good Neighbor Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., 428 N.W.2d 397, 402-03 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19,1988).

2023But we have never adopted the interpretive principle that the stand-alone fact that a statute expressly identifies the class that the Legislature intended to benefit, or uses the term “right,” means that the Legislature implicitly intended to create a private right of action to secure that right, especially where the Legislature created alternative ways to enforce the right. 19 Indeed, in Graphic Communications, we concluded that a statute that expressly provided protections to purchasers of prescription drugs did not 19 The Patients urge us to apply the multi-factor test derived from the Unit

2023But we have never adopted the interpretive principle that the stand-alone fact that a statute expressly identifies the class that the Legislature intended to benefit, or uses the term “right,” means that the Legislature implicitly intended to create a private right of action to secure that right, especially where the Legislature created alternative ways to enforce the right. 19 Indeed, in Graphic Communications, we concluded that a statute that expressly provided protections to purchasers of prescription drugs did not 19 The Patients urge us to apply the multi-factor test derived from the Unit

2012In either situation, “the agency is not deemed to have promulgated a new rule,” id., and the agency’s interpretation is not invalid, “although it does not have the force and effect of law,” In re Contested Case of Good Neighbor Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., 428 N.W.2d 397, 402-03 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19,1988).

2011See Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Minn.1990).

1993Mapleton Community Home, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., 391 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Minn.1986) (quoting Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardward Ass’n v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.1979)).

1989Otto’s Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, 437 N.W.2d 35, 42 (Minn.1989) (citing Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Association v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.1979)).

1985Fmali Herb, Inc. v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1983).

1985See, e.g., Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416 , 97 S.Ct. 2399 , 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977) (Court upheld a legislative rule); American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 707 F.2d 548 (D.C.Cir.1983) (court upheld an interpretive rule as valid and permitted agency to follow it in administering its responsibilities under the statute); Cerro Metal Prods, v. Marshall, 620 F.2d 964 (3d.

1985See, e.g., Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416 , 97 S.Ct. 2399 , 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977) (Court upheld a legislative rule); American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 707 F.2d 548 (D.C.Cir.1983) (court upheld an interpretive rule as valid and permitted agency to follow it in administering its responsibilities under the statute); Cerro Metal Prods, v. Marshall, 620 F.2d 964 (3d.