Minnesota Supreme Court, 1975

General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 4, 1975 · MacLaughlin, Peterson, Yetka

303 Minn. 565; 228 N.W.2d 261; 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1585 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, and Arthur J. Glassman, Special Assistant Attorney General, for relator., Johnson & Eastlund and Ralph W. Peterson, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2015, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

This case comes to us on writ of certiorari from the Minnesota Tax Court and is the third time this court has been asked to consider issues arising from an attempt by Hennepin County to impose a tax on certain personal property owned by respondent.

In the first appeal, General Mills, Inc. v. Commr. of Taxation, 294 Minn. 175, 199 N. W. 2d 636 (1972), we found the aforesaid property exempt from taxation. In the second appeal, General Mills, Inc. v. State, 303 Minn. 66, 226 N. W. 2d 296 (1975), we held that respondent was entitled to interest on moneys paid under the invalid assessments.1

The substance of the issues raised in the instant appeal is not readily apparent. Indeed, the parties are in disagreement as to whether this court must rule on respondent’s right to interest or whether the Tax Court has the power to order the commissioner of revenue to “certify” to county officials that respondent is entitled to interest.

We need not rule on that latter question. It is clear that respondent is entitled to 6-percent interest on its personal property tax refund. General Mills, Inc. v. State, supra. We so hold.

Moreover, there comes a time when litigation must end. We believe that time has arrived in this case.

Affirmed.

Respondent had paid the challenged tax payable in the years of 1969 through 1972 under protest. These funds have been refunded without interest.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.