Skip to main content
· 11/3/1995

Homart Development Co. v. County of Hennepin

Citations

  • 538 N.W.2d 907
  • 1995 Minn. LEXIS 917
  • 1995 WL 643918

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that “day” means a 24-hour period “unless expressly qualified or limited”
  • refusing to engraft upon a tax statute a requirement that is contrary to the language of the statute and the intention of the legislature
  • refusing to engraft upon a tax statute a requirement that is contrary to the language of the statute and the intention of the legislature
  • if a statute is free from ambiguity, courts look only at a statute's plain meaning
  • if a statute is free from ambiguity, courts look only at a statute’s plain meaning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.