§
Subdivision 1.Certiorari.
A review of any final order of the Tax Court may be had upon certiorari by the supreme court upon petition of any party to the proceedings before the Tax Court. Such review may be had on the ground that the Tax Court was without jurisdiction, that the order of the Tax Court was not justified by the evidence or was not in conformity with law, or that the Tax Court committed any other error of law.
§
Subd. 2.Service of writ.
Within 60 days after notice of the making and filing of the order of the Tax Court, or the making and filing of an order on a motion for rehearing, which includes a motion for amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a new trial, the petitioner for review shall obtain from the supreme court a writ of certiorari, and shall serve the same upon all other parties appearing in the proceedings before the Tax Court, and shall file the original, with proof of such service, with the court administrator of the Tax Court. Every petitioner, except the attorney general, the commissioner of revenue, the state and its political subdivisions, shall also pay to the court administrator the fee prescribed by rule 103.01 of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure which shall be disposed of in the manner provided by that rule, and file a bond or make a deposit in like manner and amount as in case of an appeal from the district court. The fee shall be disposed of as in such case. Return upon the writ shall be made to the supreme court and the matter shall be heard and determined by the court as in other certiorari cases, subject to the provisions hereof and to such rules as the court may prescribe for cases arising hereunder.
Notes of Decisions
Beuning Fam. LP v. Cnty. of Stearns, 817 N.W.2d 122 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 69× “We then proceeded to observe: It also does not appear that this decision of the tax court satisfies any of the rules that might otherwise permit an appeal from an interlocutory ruling. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.”
Chapman v. Comm'r of Revenue, 651 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “2001); Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (2000). We review an order granting summary judgment to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the lower court erred in applying the law.”
Kmart Corp. v. Cnty. of Stearns, 710 N.W.2d 761 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (2004). Where the facts are undisputed, as they are here, we review conclusions of law, including the interpretation of statutes, de novo.”
Conga Corp., d/b/a Conga Latin Bistro v. Comm'r of Revenue, Relator., 868 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 6× “The Commissioner now seeks review by this court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (2014). On appeal, the parties dispute whether the Commissioner erred *46 in conducting an indirect audit to assess taxes, and the appropriate remedy if the Commissioner erred.”
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Having determined that subpart (D) was ambiguous, the court then attempted to ascertain the intent of the legislature in order to resolve the question whether subpart (D) excluded facilities not in physical existence before 1991.”
Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “As an initial matter, we note that the tax court’s order did not determine the entire controversy and, therefore, is not properly before us pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (1996). However, we may permit discretionary review of such an order pursuant to our inherent…”
Nagaraja v. Comm'r of Revenue, 352 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 271.10 governs review of Tax Court decisions by the supreme court and provides a 60-day period for petition for and issuance of a writ of certiorari.”
Kmart Corp. v. Cnty. of Becker, 639 N.W.2d 856 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (2000). When the parties do not dispute the relevant facts, as here, we review legal issues de novo.”
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis, 823 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Relators sought certiorari review in our court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 271.10 (2012). Because we conclude that relators’ claims are covered by chapter 278, we agree with the tax court that relators’ claims based on the 2008 and 2009 tax years are untimely, and that their claims…”
Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 609 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 4× “It also does not appear that this decision of the tax court satisfies any of the rules that might otherwise permit an appeal from an interlocutory ruling.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.