Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Gary Reynolds, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Respondent,
Dakota County Department of Employment and Economic Assistance, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A06-1943
CITATION: 737 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
Legal Issues in APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
WHETHER RULE 6.05 OF THE MINNESOTA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLIES TO AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES UNDER MINN. STAT. § 256.045, SUBD. 7 WHEN THE DECISION BEING APPEALED HAS BEEN ISSUED BY MAIL, THEREBY ADDING 3 DAYS TO THE TIME PERIOD WITHIN WHICH SUCH AN APPEAL MUST BE FILED. The trial eourt held in the negative. Minn. Stat. § 256.045, subd. 7; D.F.C. v. Commissioner of Health, 693 N.W.2d 451,453 (Minn. App. 2005); Kenzie v. Daleo Corp., 309 Minn. 495, 245 N.W.2d 207 (1976).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
WHETHER APPELLANT FAILED TO TIMELY SERVE HIS NOTICE OF APPEAL UPON THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COUNTY PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 256.045, SUBD. 7, DEPRIVING THE DISTRICT COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. The district court held in the affirmative, determining that Appellant did not serve his notice of appeal within the time allowed by subdivision 7 and rejecting Appellant's claim that Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.05 required an expansion of the time to appeal because the Commissioner's decision was served by mail. Minn. Stat. § 256.045, subd. 7; In re Conservatorship oF Klawitter, 2004 Minn. LEXIS 135,2-3 (Minn. 2004), (attached as Respondents' Appendix, page A-2.)
APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF.