Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 9, 2006No. A05-442Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that Kmart must, under Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (2002), provide the information at issue in this case. But I take issue with the majority’s characterization of how the Minnesota Tax Court must respect its own precedent, and I disagree with the majority’s decision to retrospectively apply our adoption of the tax court’s new interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a).
First, I write to clarify that an executive branch court such as the tax court,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Laborers' International Union of North America, Afl-Cio, in No. 93-5208 v. Foster Wheeler Corporation Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. Laborers' International Union of North America, Afl-Cio v. Foster Wheeler Corporation Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation in No. 93-5233. Laborers' International Union of North America, Afl-Cio v. Foster Wheeler Corporation Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Foster Wheeler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Angela Stroe and Marin Stroe v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Ramaprakash v. Federal Aviation AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.