Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentHanson, Justice
I respectfully dissent. I would conclude that Hy-Vee may avoid the 3-year sanction by proof that its acceptance of the voucher was the product of the mutual mistake of the parties to the sale. Because there are genuine issues of material fact concerning Hy-Vee’s claim of mutual mistake, I would reverse the court of appeals and remand to MDH for hearing.
The WIC tobacco rule mandates a 3-year disqualification on a WIC vendor for “[o]ne incidence of the sale of * * * tobacco products in exchange for food instruments.” 7 ‘ C.F.R. § 246.12(Z )(l)(iii)(A). But the federal rule does not define the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gartner v. EikillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Theisen’s Inc. v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Winter v. SkoglundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Smith v. First Choice ServicesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.