8 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Star Research Institute v. County of Hennepingreen2 sentences2013See North Star Research Inst. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 6 , 236 N.W.2d 754, 757 (1975); see also Under the Rainbow, 741 N.W.2d at 885-86 . 2013See North Star Research Inst. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 6 , 236 N.W.2d 754, 757 (1975); see also Under the Rainbow, 741 N.W.2d at 885-86 . | 2 | 4 |
Chateau Community Housing Ass'n v. County of Hennepingreen2 sentences2007Ass’n v. County of Hennepin, 452 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn.1990). 2007Ass’n v. County of Hennepin, 452 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Mayo Foundation v. Commissioner of Revenuegreen2 sentences2007We explained the appropriate approach to the North Star factors in a contemporaneous case, Mayo Foundation v. Commissioner of Revenue, 306 Minn. 25 , 236 N.W.2d 767 (1975). 2007We explained the appropriate approach to the North Star factors in a contemporaneous case, Mayo Foundation v. Commissioner of Revenue, 306 Minn. 25 , 236 N.W.2d 767 (1975). | 1 | 3 |
Community Memorial Home at Osakis, Minnesota, Inc. v. County of Douglasgreen2 sentences2007We have reiterated in subsequent cases the methodology described in Mayo Foundation : that the North Star factors are intended to serve only as guidelines, e.g., Cmty. Mem’l Home at Osakis, Minn., Inc. v. County of Douglas, 573 N.W.2d 83, 86 (Minn.1997); that not all factors must be satisfied to qualify for the exemption, e.g., Croixdale, 726 N.W.2d at 488 ; and- that each case must be decided on its own facts, e.g., Chateau Cmty. Hous. 2007We have reiterated in subsequent cases the methodology described in Mayo Foundation : that the North Star factors are intended to serve only as guidelines, e.g., Cmty. Mem’l Home at Osakis, Minn., Inc. v. County of Douglas, 573 N.W.2d 83, 86 (Minn.1997); that not all factors must be satisfied to qualify for the exemption, e.g., Croixdale, 726 N.W.2d at 488 ; and- that each case must be decided on its own facts, e.g., Chateau Cmty. Hous. | 1 | 2 |
Under the Rainbow Child Care Center, Inc. v. County of Goodhuegreen2 sentences2013See North Star Research Inst. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 6 , 236 N.W.2d 754, 757 (1975); see also Under the Rainbow, 741 N.W.2d at 885-86 . 2013See North Star Research Inst. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 6 , 236 N.W.2d 754, 757 (1975); see also Under the Rainbow, 741 N.W.2d at 885-86 . | 1 | 1 |
Share v. Commissioner of Revenuegreen2 sentences2007See SHARE v. Comm’r of Revenue, 363 N.W.2d 47, 52 (Minn.1985) (although discussing other North Star factors, stating that “SHARE’S charitable exemption claim is defeated by application of factor three” because “SHARE provides no service without a fee”). 2007In addition to assessing the other North Star factors, we declared that “SHARE’S charitable exemption claim is defeated by application of factor three — whether recipients of the charity are required to pay for the assistance in whole or in part.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browninggreen2 sentences2007It is noteworthy that the court quoted and apparently relied on a case in which it stated, “It is not thereby meant that the institution must dispense charity or that it may not charge a fee for services rendered.” Assembly Homes, 273 Minn. at 204 , 140 N.W.2d at 341 (quoting State v. Browning, 192 Minn. 25, 29 , 255 N.W. 254, 256 (1934)). 2007It is noteworthy that the court quoted and apparently relied on a case in which it stated, “It is not thereby meant that the institution must dispense charity or that it may not charge a fee for services rendered.” Assembly Homes, 273 Minn. at 204 , 140 N.W.2d at 341 (quoting State v. Browning, 192 Minn. 25, 29 , 255 N.W. 254, 256 (1934)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Fraleygreen2 sentences2007Found. v. County of Polk, 621 N.W.2d 727, 732 (Minn.2001). 2007Found. v. County of Polk, 621 N.W.2d 727, 732 (Minn.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Croixdale, Inc. v. County of Washingtongreen2 sentences2007We have reiterated in subsequent cases the methodology described in Mayo Foundation : that the North Star factors are intended to serve only as guidelines, e.g., Cmty. Mem’l Home at Osakis, Minn., Inc. v. County of Douglas, 573 N.W.2d 83, 86 (Minn.1997); that not all factors must be satisfied to qualify for the exemption, e.g., Croixdale, 726 N.W.2d at 488 ; and- that each case must be decided on its own facts, e.g., Chateau Cmty. Hous. 2007We have reiterated in subsequent cases the methodology described in Mayo Foundation : that the North Star factors are intended to serve only as guidelines, e.g., Cmty. Mem’l Home at Osakis, Minn., Inc. v. County of Douglas, 573 N.W.2d 83, 86 (Minn.1997); that not all factors must be satisfied to qualify for the exemption, e.g., Croixdale, 726 N.W.2d at 488 ; and- that each case must be decided on its own facts, e.g., Chateau Cmty. Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Rio Vista Non-Profit Housing Corp. v. County of Ramseygreen2 sentences2007Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn.1979) (holding that the rent assistance paid by the federal government should be treated as a “donation” for the second factor of the North Star test); Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County, 273 Minn. 197 , 140 N.W.2d 336 (1966) (granting tax exemption to a nursing home even though the resident care was paid for primarily by the county and the Veterans Administration). 2007Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn.1979) (holding that the rent assistance paid by the federal government should be treated as a “donation” for the second factor of the North Star test); Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County, 273 Minn. 197 , 140 N.W.2d 336 (1966) (granting tax exemption to a nursing home even though the resident care was paid for primarily by the county and the Veterans Administration). | 1 | 1 |
White Earth Land Recovery Project v. County of Beckergreen2 sentences1998Although the North Star factors are only guidelines, White Earth Land Recovery Project v. County of Becker, 544 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Minn.1996), and every factor need not be present for an institution to qualify for exemption, this court will affirm the tax court when, after an independent review of the record, there is sufficient evidence in the record upon which the tax court could have reasonably based its conclusion. 1998Although the North Star factors are only guidelines, White Earth Land Recovery Project v. County of Becker, 544 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Minn.1996), and every factor need not be present for an institution to qualify for exemption, this court will affirm the tax court when, after an independent review of the record, there is sufficient evidence in the record upon which the tax court could have reasonably based its conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
American Ass'n of Cereal Chemists v. County of Dakotagreen2 sentences1998Property tax exemptions are to be “strictly construed, ⅜ * * for the general rule is that all property is taxable and. the burden of proof is on the taxpayer.” American Ass’n of Cereal Chemists v. County of Dakota, 454 N.W.2d 912, 914 (citation omitted). 1998Property tax exemptions are to be “strictly construed, ⅜ * * for the general rule is that all property is taxable and. the burden of proof is on the taxpayer.” American Ass’n of Cereal Chemists v. County of Dakota, 454 N.W.2d 912, 914 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christian Business Men's Committee of Minneapolis, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences2007We apply instead the test we used in Christian Business Men’s Committee, which permits commercial use of otherwise exempt property so long as that commercial use is incidental to the charitable use. 228 Minn, at 561, 38 N.W.2d at 812 . 2007We apply instead the test we used in Christian Business Men’s Committee, which permits commercial use of otherwise exempt property so long as that commercial use is incidental to the charitable use. 228 Minn, at 561, 38 N.W.2d at 812 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Care Institute, Inc.-Maplewood v. County of Ramsey
green
2 sentences2007The tax court applied the North Star factors to Afton based on the following language from our opinion in Maplewood: “Resolution of a given case under Minn.Stat. § 272.02, subd. 1(6), requires an analysis of the facts of that case in light of the North Star factors with each case being decided on its own merits.” 576 N.W.2d at 738 . *438 That language from Maplewood, however, must be understood in the context of that case. 2007The tax court applied the North Star factors to Afton based on the following language from our opinion in Maplewood: “Resolution of a given case under Minn.Stat. § 272.02, subd. 1(6), requires an analysis of the facts of that case in light of the North Star factors with each case being decided on its own merits.” 576 N.W.2d at 738 . *438 That language from Maplewood, however, must be understood in the context of that case. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Validity of Claim of Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County
green
2 sentences2007Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn.1979) (holding that the rent assistance paid by the federal government should be treated as a “donation” for the second factor of the North Star test); Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County, 273 Minn. 197 , 140 N.W.2d 336 (1966) (granting tax exemption to a nursing home even though the resident care was paid for primarily by the county and the Veterans Administration). 2007Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn.1979) (holding that the rent assistance paid by the federal government should be treated as a “donation” for the second factor of the North Star test); Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County, 273 Minn. 197 , 140 N.W.2d 336 (1966) (granting tax exemption to a nursing home even though the resident care was paid for primarily by the county and the Veterans Administration). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.