C. Lodge v. Robinson Twp. ZHB v. Robinson Twp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[t]he use of the word “should” in a rule or a statute is not mandatory,” and citing cases
• acknowledging that deciding questions of public policy is a role \ 'usually better performed by the legislature' \ (quoting Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc. , 715 N.W.2d 452 , 457 n.5 (Minn. 2006) )
• stating that the use of the word “shall” denotes a mandatory duty
• noting the court’s “hesitation ... to declare the public policy of the state in employer-employee relationships,” particularly when the issue implicates “the common-law, employment-at-will rule”
• stating that, “while a district court retains discretion to ensure that the amount of costs and disbursements allowed to the prevailing party is reasonable, it does not have discretion to relieve the non-prevailing party of its obligation to pay those costs and disbursements”
• “[T]he Legislature abrogates the common law only by express wording or necessary implication.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).