Court Opinion

ID: 9526131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:12:49.815002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:31.175960
License: Public Domain

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the reasoning and the result reached by the majority. Under the rules we must apply to the interpretation of statutes, MinmStat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a), is clear and free from ambiguity. The statute limits review to those situations where the petition for writ of certiorari is timely served upon the proper parties. Nevertheless, application of the statute in the context of the facts before us has aspects of elevating form over substance *204and denies Harms any meaningful review. This is an unfortunate result, but one mandated by the statute. I have no doubt that the commissioner was fully aware in a timely manner of Harms’ intent to pursue an appeal. I urge the legislature to revisit Minn.Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a), to ascertain whether service of a copy of the writ of certiorari satisfies the intent of the statute.