Reynolds v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s decision that his appeal pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 256.045, subd. 7 (2004), was untimely. Appellant argues that Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.05 should have applied to extend the 30-day time limit for appeal an additional three days because he received notice of the commissioner’s decision by mail. We agree, and reverse and remand.
FACTS
Appellant applied for General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) in April 2005, from respondent Dakota County Department of Employment and Economic Assistance (DCDEEA). The application was denied because DCDEEA…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kenzie v. Dalco Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- State v. HuggerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Flame Bar, Inc. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Wilkins v. City of GlencoeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- E.N. v. Special School District No. 1Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wong v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- Wong v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016