author: GILDEA, Justice.

text:
    In the Matter of the Civil COMMITMENT OF Terrance John GIEM.
    No. A06-1588.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Dec. 13, 2007.

      Mary Margaret Huot, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.
    Margaret Gustafson Samec, Hugo, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

GILDEA, Justice.

This case involves the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to consider Ramsey County’s petition to commit appellant Terrance John Giem as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and/or a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Giem contends that the district court lost subject matter jurisdiction over the petition when it did not hold a hearing on the merits of the petition within the deadlines set forth in Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1 (2006). The district court and the court of appeals held that Giem waived the right to have the merits hearing held within the statutory deadlines. Because we hold that the district court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction, but that the court’s determination that Giem waived his right to an immediate hearing was clearly erroneous, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Giem is a Level 3 sex offender. He was scheduled for release from the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Moose Lake on October 27, 2005. But on October 19, Ramsey County petitioned for his civil commitment as an SPP and/or SDP. The district court conducted an initial hearing on the petition on October 26, 2005. At that hearing, Giem’s attorney stated, “although [Giem] does not agree with the petition, he would like to have insight into where he’s at right now and * * * is willing to go to the security hospital * ⅜ ⅜. [H]e’s not really in agreement with the petition, but has waived his preliminary hearing.” The district court asked Giem, “[D]o you understand what [your attorney] just said” and “is this what you have chosen to do today?” To each question Giem responded, ‘Tes, Your Honor.” The court then scheduled prehearing examinations for November 18, 2005, and asked, “Do we want to try to set a[ ] date [for the merits hearing] at this point?” Giem’s attorney replied, “Your Honor, we’d like to wait with that until after the exam, actually.”

The court held a hearing on February 23 for the purpose of scheduling the merits hearing. At that time, Giem moved orally and in writing that the petition be dismissed because 125 days had passed since its filing and the district court had not conducted a merits hearing. Giem’s motion was based on section 253B.08, subdivision 1, which provides that “the hearing on a commitment petition * * * shall be held within 90 days from the date of the filing of the petition.” In the alternative, Giem demanded that his hearing be held within 5 days of his request. This alternative request was based on the other timing provision in the same subdivision:

The proposed patient * ⅜ * may demand in writing at any time that the hearing be held immediately. Unless the hearing is held within five days of the date of the demand * * * the petition shall be automatically discharged if the patient is being held in a treatment facility pursuant to court order.

Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1. There is no dispute that Giem was being held in a treatment facility pursuant to a court order.

At the hearing, Giem’s attorney argued that Giem wanted to have the merits hearing as soon as possible because the examinations were complete. His attorney stated that she was ready and available for such a hearing. The district court denied Giem’s motion, stating that “[a]ny delays if they can be characterized as such with regard to bringing this case on for trial has [sic] been the result of the acquiescence of [Giem]” and “I believe that [Giem] does have a right to a trial in a timely manner, but he has waived his right by his acquiescence * * The court further noted that as a practical matter the attorneys and judge could not be made available for the hearing within 5 to 15 days. On March 6, the court issued a written order “[b]y agreement of the Court and counsel” continuing the merits hearing to May 8-12, 2006.

On March 22, Giem filed an appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals from the order denying both his motion to dismiss and the demand for a merits hearing within 5 days. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order and said, “The February 23 order is not appealable because it does not deny a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Giem subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court heard this motion on May 1, but at that time Giem’s attorney asked the court to continue the motion to dismiss and postpone the hearing in order to implement a less restrictive alternative than commitment and to find Giem a place to live and a treating psychologist. The court questioned Giem to ensure that he understood his attorney’s request and that he agreed to it. Giem confirmed his understanding and agreement. The court then ordered a continuance until June 26.

At the June 26 court appearance, the district court considered Giem’s argument that he was unable to formulate a less restrictive alternative because Ramsey County Human Services refused to appoint a case manager. Giem asked the district court to order Ramsey County to appoint a case manager to his case, continue the case to permit the preparation of the alternative plan, or dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied Giem’s motion to dismiss, but ruled that to the extent that Giem’s motion could be construed as a demand for an immediate hearing pursuant to section 253B.08, subdivision 1, it was granted and the court ordered the merits hearing to commence on July 5.

The merits hearing on the petition to civilly commit Giem as an SPP and/or SDP was held July 5-7, 2006. The district court committed Giem as an SDP on August 18, 2006. Giem appealed to the court of appeals, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the civil commitment petition because it failed to comply with the deadlines in section 253B.08, subdivision 1. The court of appeals ruled that the deadlines “do not define or limit” the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. In re Civil Commitment of Giem, 727 N.W.2d 198, 203 (Minn.App.2007). Rather, the court held the deadlines to be statutory rights that were subject to waiver and that Giem had waived them. Id. at 203-04, 205. We granted Giem’s petition for review.

I.

Giem argues that the district court lost subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition to commit him as an SPP and/or SDP when it failed to provide him a hearing on the merits of the commitment petition pursuant to the deadlines set forth in section 253B.08, subdivision 1. Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Johnson v. Murray, 648 N.W.2d 664, 670 (Minn.2002).

We turn first to an examination of the statute that Giem contends divested the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. There are two different timing provisions in section 253B.08, subdivision 1, and both appear to apply to the county’s petition. First, the district court “shall” hold a hearing within 90 days from the date of filing — -or up to an additional 30 days for good cause shown — on a commitment petition for an SPP and/or SDP. Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1. The statute further provides that “[t]he proceeding shall be dismissed if the proposed patient has not had a hearing on a commitment petition within the allowed time.” Id. Second, the proposed patient “may demand in writing at any time that the hearing be held immediately.” Id. The hearing must be held within 5 days of the date of the demand — or 10 additional days for good cause shown^ — otherwise “the petition shall be automatically discharged if the patient is being held in a treatment facility pursuant to court order.” Id. Neither deadline was satisfied in this case.

We turn next to an examination of the consequence of the district court’s failure to meet the statutory deadlines. The parties do not dispute that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition when the county filed it on October 19, 2005. But because the statutory deadlines were not met, Giem argues the court lost the authority to conduct any further proceedings on the petition. See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, 8 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1943) (noting that subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide an issue in controversy).

Giem argues that the timing provisions in section 253B.08, subdivision 1 are mandatory and not merely directory. He contends, in essence, that the legislative requirements that the petition “shall be dismissed” in the first part of the statute and the phrase “shall be automatically discharged” in the second part of the statute mean that the timing provisions are mandatory. In other words, because the legislature has provided for consequences if the deadlines are not met, the deadlines are mandatory and therefore necessarily jurisdictional.

But there is a fundamental difference between finding that a deadline is mandatory and concluding that it operates to take away the district court’s authority to act. We recently discussed the difference between deadlines as procedural tools and deadlines operating as jurisdictional limits. Rubey v. Vannett, 714 N.W.2d 417 (Minn.2006). As we noted there, one aspect of the difference is that defects in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties. Id. at 422. We attempted in Rubey to lend more clarity to the analysis of this important distinction. In that case, we held that a provision in our rules of civil procedure requiring that motions for a new trial be heard within 60 days did not restrict the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Rather, we held that the provision was “a procedural tool.” Id.

Because of our lack of clarity in distinguishing procedural tools from jurisdictional limits, Giem’s argument finds some support in our case law. For example, Giem analogizes the consequential “automatically discharged” language in section 253B.08, subdivision 1, to a similar phrase in Minn.Stat. § 278.03 (2006), which this court characterized as .“jurisdictional” in Land O’ Lakes Dairy Co. v. Douglas County, Hintzen, 225 Minn. 538, 539, 31 N.W.2d 474, 476 (1948). In that case, we construed section 278.03, which requires that a taxpayer protesting his property tax assessment pay half of the tax levied against the property at issue before filing a petition, then half of the remainder the following year. Id. at 537, 31 N.W.2d at 475. Failure to pay taxes when due “shall operate automatically to dismiss the petition and all proceedings thereunder unless such payment is waived by an order of the court.” Id., 31 N.W.2d at 475 (citing Minn. Stat. § 278.03) (emphasis added). We held that the district court’s jurisdiction “terminated” “automatically” by operation of statute when the taxpayer failed to pay the second installment. Id. at 538, 31 N.W.2d at 476.

But we clarified the reach of Land O’ Lakes in In re Thunderbird Motel Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 289 Minn. 239, 241, 183 N.W.2d 569, 571 (1971). There, the taxpayer’s petition was automatically dismissed by operation of the statute because the taxpayer did not pay the second tax installment when due. Id. at 239, 183 N.W.2d at 570. The taxpayer brought a motion to vacate the dismissal. We noted that “[t]he failure to pay the second installment when due was occasioned by a misunderstanding between the taxpayer and its mortgagee” as to who was supposed to pay the taxes. Id. at 240, 183 N.W.2d at 570. Moreover, the taxpayer cited the fact that immediately upon becoming aware of the error, it paid the taxes with the requisite penalty. Id., 183 N.W.2d at 570.

We distinguished Land O’ Lakes because in that case the taxpayer neither paid the taxes nor intended to do so. Thunderbird, 289 Minn, at 241, 183 N.W.2d at 571. This distinction was “significant” because the statute permitted the payment requirement to be waived upon timely application and did not specify whether the dismissal sanction was with or without prejudice to obtaining further relief. Id., 183 N.W.2d at 571. We noted that the legislature has the “power to impose strict limitations on the right to review tax assessments,” but that “once the proceedings are initiated and the court has jurisdiction, in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary, * * * ordinary rules of civil procedure apply unless clearly inconsistent with the statute.” Id. at 241-42, 183 N.W.2d at 571; see also Husby-Thompson Co. v. County of Freeborn, 435 N.W.2d 814, 815 (Minn.1989) (reversing the tax court’s refusal to reinstate petition and noting that “by providing for a waiver” in the statute, the legislature “has recognized there may be situations where relief from a dismissal is appropriate.”). As clarified by Thunderbird and Husby-Thompson, Land O’ Lakes is properly read as addressing a situation where the legislature has created a substantive right (the ability to challenge decisions made by taxing authorities), and imposed a limitation (the requirement that taxes be timely paid) as a condition on the invocation of that right. Land O’ Lakes should not be read to address the situation presented in this case, which involves the legislature’s ability to take away the court’s power to act on a matter properly before the court.

We agree with Giem that the provisions of section 253B.08, subdivision 1 are “mandatory” as we have defined that term in the context of statutory interpretation. See Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536, 542 (Minn.2007) (noting that a statutory timing provision that included a consequence for noncompliance was mandatory); Wenger v. Wenger, 200 Minn. 436, 440, 274 N.W. 517, 519 (1937) (noting that when determining whether a statute is mandatory, this court looks to whether the act provided for is merely incidental or subsidiary to some chief purpose of the law, whether it is designed for protection of third persons, and whether the statute declares consequences for a failure to comply). But we clarify that our cases that discuss the mandatory/directory distinction in the context of questions of statutory interpretation do not provide an answer to the question of whether those statutory provisions, even if written in mandatory language, operate to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction when such statutory provisions are not satisfied.

Those cases do not answer the question here, because Giem’s construction of the statute — as one divesting the district court of subject matter jurisdiction it originally-had — implicates constitutional separation of powers principles. Our state constitution provides a broad grant of subject matter jurisdiction to the district court, providing that “[t]he district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases.” Minn. Const, art. VI, § 3; see State ex rel. Koalska v. Swenson, 241 Minn. 278, 282, 62 N.W.2d 842, 844 (1954). The Minnesota district court thus is a constitutional court of original jurisdiction. Over 100 years ago we recognized that the district court is “the one court of general jurisdiction” and that “when it has once tried a case according to law, it does not, like certain courts of limited jurisdiction, lose its power to render judgment by mere delay beyond a specified time.” Vogle v. Grace, 5 Minn. 294, 295, 5 Gil. 232, 233 (1861). Giem’s construction of the timing provisions in section 253B.08, subdivision 1, as mandatory and thereby operating to divest the court of jurisdiction conflicts with what we said in Vogle.

In addition, such a construction would permit the legislature to interfere with the power the constitution vests in the district court. Cf. State v. Harris, 667 N.W.2d 911, 918 (Minn.2003) (“Granting judicial officers the power to hear and try all civil and criminal cases may improperly infringe on the district court’s original jurisdiction. The legislature’s delegation of an area of the district court’s original jurisdiction calls for this court’s close scrutiny.” (internal quotation omitted)). We have long recognized that where the constitution commits a matter to one branch of government, the constitution prohibits the other branches from invading that sphere or interfering with the coordinate branch’s exercise of its authority. See Bloom v. Am. Exp. Co., 222 Minn. 249, 256, 23 N.W.2d 570, 575 (1946) (“A constitutional grant of power to one of the three departments of government * * ⅜ is a denial to the others.” (internal quotation omitted)); State ex rel. Decker v. Montague, 195 Minn. 278, 288, 262 N.W. 684, 689 (1935) (“The constitutional separation of authority (Minn. Const. art. 3, § 1) forbids * * * interference with the exercise of the powers which that instrument places” in the other branches of government).

We have held that if we can construe a statute to avoid a constitutional confrontation, we are to do so. Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12, 23 (Minn.2004). We recognized in Kline that statutes are presumed constitutional and that “we are required to place a construction on the statute that will find it so if at all possible.” Id. We construed the statute at issue in that case in a way that avoided a potential separation of powers problem. Id. (“It seems highly doubtful that the legislature intended the limitation of review of an arbitrator’s decision to the WCCA, particularly when such a limitation necessarily implicates due process and separation of powers concerns.”). We adopt a similar construction of section 253B.08, subdivision 1, and construe the statutory deadlines as not operating to limit the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court.

Such a construction is consistent with our mandate to construe statutes, if possible, to avoid constitutional infirmities. Such a construction is also warranted here because the legislature gave no clear indication in section 253B.08, subdivision 1 that it intended to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction if the hearing was not held in compliance with the statute’s deadlines. The legislature did not even mention jurisdiction in section 253B.08. See Thunderbird, 289 Minn, at 241-42, 183 N.W.2d at 571 (noting that “once the proceedings are initiated and the court has jurisdiction, in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary, * * * ordinary rules of civil procedure apply unless clearly inconsistent with the statute.” (emphasis added)); see also In the Interest of MFB, 860 P.2d 1140, 1149 (Wyo.1993) (holding that failure to set an adjudicatory hearing within 60 days of the denial of allegations contained in a petition invoking juvenile court jurisdiction did not result in a loss of that court’s subject matter jurisdiction and holding that “it would require an unequivocal expression from the legislature for a violation of the statute’s language to result in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”). In the absence of a clear legislative statement that the deadlines operate to divest the court of jurisdiction, which would require us to squarely confront and decide the separation of powers issue, we hold that the deadlines in section 253B.08, subdivision 1, while written in mandatory language, do not divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. The statute thus requires a disposition but it does not deprive the court of power to act, which means that the district court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction when the statutory deadlines passed prior to the merits hearing being held.

II.

We next consider whether the district court and the court of appeals correctly held that Giem waived his right to have the merits hearing held within the deadlines set by section 253B.08, subdivision 1. The county contends that Giem impliedly waived his right to demand a hearing through acquiescence and conduct that delayed the petition proceedings. Giem argues that his February 23 demand entitled him by law to an immediate hearing, regardless of conduct prior to that demand.

A.

In addressing the waiver question, we must first determine whether waiver principles are applicable in the context of section 253B.08, subdivision 1. The district court did not clearly articulate its basis for concluding that the deadlines in the statute could be waived. The court of appeals has held that the deadlines can be waived by conduct of the patient. See In re May, 477 N.W.2d 913, 915 (Minn.App.1991) (finding that appellant’s failure to attend commitment hearings, which were scheduled within the deadline, resulted in a waiver because “[i]t would be an unreasonable result to permit a proposed patient to avoid commitment simply by not appearing in court.”); see also In re Irwin, 529 N.W.2d 366, 371 (Minn.App.1995) (noting that “[a] patient may waive [the] requirements” of section 253B.08), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); In re Buckhalton, 503 N.W.2d 148, 151 (Minn.App.1993) (finding waiver of the section 253B.08, subdivision 1 deadlines), aff'd 518 N.W.2d 531 (Minn.1994).

The county argues that the deadlines prescribed in section 253B.08, subdivision 1 are waivable. Those deadlines are similar to the right to a speedy trial, which can be waived. In a criminal case, the “right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing upon the courts an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch.” State v. Dehler, 257 Minn. 549, 556, 102 N.W.2d 696, 702 (1960). It is a personal, constitutional right that can be waived. Id. at 557, 102 N.W.2d at 703 (citing State v. McTague, 173 Minn. 153, 154, 216 N.W. 787, 788 (1927)). Similarly, the deadlines provided in section 253B.08, subdivision 1 seek to protect liberty interests by preventing delay. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491-92, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (“We have recognized that for the ordinary citizen, commitment to a mental hospital produces a massive curtailment of liberty and in consequence requires due process protection.” (internal quotations omitted)). If constitutionally based rights to a speedy trial can be waived, a patient’s conduct could likewise be construed as a waiver of the expedited statutory schedule for civil commitment proceedings.

Our jurisprudence reflects that we examine the nature of the right at issue in determining application of waiver principles. For example in State v. Humes, 581 N.W.2d 317 (Minn.1998), we examined whether the district court had the authority to resentence a defendant under Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, where it had failed to include a conditional release term in the original sentence. The defendant argued that the court had no such authority and that the statutory requirement for the imposition of a conditional release term could be waived because the statute did not expressly prohibit waiver of its requirements. Id. at 319. We “reject[ed] the argument that the legislature must append language prohibiting waiver to every mandatory statute to ensure that the statute is given effect.” Id. Rather than applying a blanket rule on waiver, we proceeded to examine the nature of the right at issue. Finding that the statute at issue did “not serve to protect any right of the defendant,” we concluded that the defendant could not rely on waiver principles. Id. at 320. In this case, by contrast, the right to a speedy disposition of the petition operates to protect important liberty interests of a confined patient, just as the right to a speedy trial operates for confined defendants in criminal cases. Just as confined defendants can waive the right to a speedy trial, we hold that confined patients can waive the deadlines in section 253B.08, subdivision l.

B.

Having concluded that waiver principles apply, we turn next to a review of the district court’s conclusion that Giem waived, by his conduct, both the right to have a merits hearing within 90/120 days of the October 19, 2005, petition filing and the right to have a hearing within 5/15 days of his February 23, 2006, demand. We review the district court’s decision that Giem waived his rights for clear error. See In re Welfare of G.L.H., 614 N.W.2d 718, 723 (Minn.2000) (applying clearly erroneous standard of review to district court’s finding of waiver).

We have defined waiver as the “intentional relinquishment of a known right,” Carlson v. Doran, 252 Minn. 449, 456, 90 N.W.2d 323, 328 (1958), or “an estoppel from enforcing it.” State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488, 495, 260 N.W. 875, 878 (1935). Waiver is consensual in nature. Carlson, 252 Minn, at 456, 90 N.W.2d at 328. It arises from voluntary choice, not mere negligence. Tupa, 194 Minn. at 495, 260 N.W. at 878. Intent and knowledge are essential elements of a finding of waiver. Carlson, 252 Minn, at 456, 90 N.W.2d at 328.

Giem argues that the statutory deadlines cannot be waived constructively, and that any waiver must be written or expressed on the record. But outside the context of waivers of the right to counsel and to a trial by jury, which our rules require be made in writing, we have found waivers to be inferred from conduct and acquiescence. See State v. Martin, 723 N.W.2d 613, 620 n. 7, 621 (Minn.2006) (discussing cases where rights have been found to be waived by defendant’s conduct); Engstrom v. Farmers & Bankers Life Ins. Co., 230 Minn. 308, 312, 41 N.W.2d 422, 424 (1950) (noting that intention to waive rights “need not be proved by express declaration or agreement, but may be inferred from acts and conduct”). We adopt the same rule in this case and hold that a confined patient’s waiver of the statutory deadlines in section 253B.08, subdivision 1 can be inferred from the conduct of the patient.

The lower courts found that Giem waived both of the deadlines in the statute. The record reflects that at the October 26, 2005, appearance Giem expressly waived his right to a preliminary hearing and agreed that a date for the merits hearing should not be set until after completion of the examinations. These facts support a finding that Giem constructively waived his right to a hearing within the 90/120-day deadline. The district court, county attorney, and examiners detrimentally relied on Giem’s October 26 waiver by not scheduling a date for the merits hearing. Giem had knowledge and intent to postpone the merits hearing until after his psychological evaluation in order to obtain “insight into where he’s at right now.” The February 23 finding that the delay in scheduling the merits hearing arose from Giem’s acquiescence was therefore not clearly erroneous. That finding is further supported by Giem’s requests for continuance on May 1 and June 26 in order to pursue the less restrictive alternative — requests which were inconsistent with his motion to dismiss.

That Giem waived his right to have the hearing held within the 90/120-day deadline, however, does not answer the question of whether he also waived his right to demand an immediate merits hearing under the other provision in the statute. Section 253B.08, subdivision 1, as set forth above, contains two different rights of which Giem could avail himself. See Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2) (2006) (delineating the presumption that “the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain”). With respect to the second right in the statute, the record does not support a finding that Giem waived his right to demand an immediate hearing within the 5/15-day period. To the contrary, when Giem made his demand on February 23, his attorney represented to the district court that they were ready and available for an immediate hearing. The record also does not support a finding that Giem had knowledge of or intent to waive the right to demand an immediate hearing. We hold therefore that the district court’s finding that Giem waived his right to demand an immediate hearing was clearly erroneous.

III.

Our conclusion that the district court’s finding that Giem waived his right to demand an immediate hearing was clearly erroneous requires that we discuss the appropriate remedy. Giem had the right to “demand in writing at any time that the hearing be held immediately.” Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Regardless of the scheduling impracticalities for the court, county attorney, and examiners, the district court was required to hold the hearing within 5 days (or within an additional 10 days if good cause were shown) of Giem’s February 23 demand. Because the district court failed to conduct the hearing within 5 days of the demand and because the record does not support a finding that Giem waived this right, the petition should have been “discharged.” Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1. Therefore, we hold that the order for commitment issued in August 2006 must be vacated, and that Giem must be released from confinement.

Giem argues that the discharge means that the county is precluded from filing a petition involving any actions that were at issue in the petition the county filed on October 19, 2005. We reject this argument and hold that the discharge is without prejudice and does not operate to bar the county from filing the petition anew. We agree with the court of appeals that “the time constraints provided in subdivision 1 relate to the ‘core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.’” Giem, 727 N.W.2d at 202 (quoting Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997)). Those concerns are addressed through Giem’s release from commitment pending the county’s decision to file another petition.

The government’s interest, however, must also be considered. We have previously recognized that the government has a compelling interest in the “protection of members of the public from persons who have an uncontrollable impulse to sexually assault.” In re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910, 914 (Minn.1994). That interest is served by allowing the county, if it chooses, to renew its petition, and to rely on any conduct that Giem engaged in prior to the filing of its renewed petition. We recognize that this result may lead to a hearing on the merits of the county’s petition that is replicative of the hearing the district court conducted in July 2006. But this is the result mandated by application of the clear language the legislature used in section 253B.08, subdivision 1.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

      . Three examiners were appointed to evaluate Giem: Dr. Meyers (selected by Giem), Dr. Zeller (selected by the district court), and Dr. Farnsworth (selected by the county). Dr. Meyers conducted his initial examination on November 18, 2005, continued his examination on December 1, and filed his report on April 27, 2006. Dr. Zeller conducted his examination on December 30 and filed his report on April 4, 2006. Dr. Farnsworth examined Giem on December 2 and completed his report on December 6, 2005.

      . The statute provides:
      The hearing on the commitment petition ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ shall be held within 90 days from the date of the filing of the petition. For good cause shown, the court may extend the time of hearing up to an additional 30 days. The proceeding shall be dismissed if the proposed patient has not had a hearing on a commitment petition within the allowed time.
      Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1.

      .The legislature also provided that “the court may extend the time of hearing on the demand for an additional ten days” if “good cause” is shown. Minn.Stat. § 253B.08, subd. 1.

      . As noted by the court of appeals, Giem's appeal from the district court's commitment order challenges only the denial of his February 23 demand for immediate trial or dismissal. Giem, 727 N.W.2d at 204. Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 103.04 provides: “On appeal from or review of an order the appellate courts may review any order affecting the order from which the appeal is taken and on appeal from a judgment may review any order involving the merits or affecting the judgment.” The February 23 order denying Giem’s motion to dismiss affects the commitment order because it kept the proceedings on the petition active. Thus, the February 23 order is properly before us.

      . This case does not involve a situation where “the legislature, in creating a substantive right by statute, may, as an element of that substantive right, circumscribe the adjudication of that right more strictly than in other cases.” In re O'Rourke, 300 Minn. 158, 175 n. 11, 220 N.W.2d 811, 821 n. 11 (1974); see also Carlson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 392 N.W.2d 216, 219, 221, 223-24 (Minn.1986) (holding that the requirement in the pre-1981 version of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that victims of discrimination file a charge of discrimination with the Department of Human Rights within 6 months of the claimed illegal act was jurisdictional and not subject to tolling). The legislature in section 253B.08, subdivision 1, is not circumscribing the right of a party to secure relief such as when it enacts a statute of limitations or imposes exhaustion requirements. Rather, if Giem’s construction is adopted, the legislature is purporting to restrict the authority of the district court to act on a matter that properly fell within its subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance.

      . Our analysis in Rubey was consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s warning against misuse of the term “jurisdictional.” The Court has noted that " '[classifying time prescriptions, even rigid ones, under the heading “subject matter jurisdiction” can be confounding. ⅜ * * [Tjhe label “jurisdictional” [should be used] * * * only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction) falling within a court's adjudicatory authority.’ " Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 413-14, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454-55, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004)). The Court distinguishes between non-jurisdictional procedural rules designed for the orderly transaction of business and jurisdictional time limits set forth by Congress in statute. Bowles v. Russell, —, U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2364-65, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 16, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (discussing distinction between jurisdictional rules and “claim-processing” rules).

      . A patient's remedy for the district court's failure to follow the time procedures is a writ of mandamus. See Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536, 541 (Minn.2007) ("When a statute requires a governmental body to perform some act, it is reasonable to assume the governmental body will do so or it could be compelled to do so by mandamus.'').

      . While not cited by the parties, Heller v. Wolner, 269 N.W.2d 31 (Minn.1978), could also be read as supporting Giem’s argument. In Heller, this court considered whether the district court lost jurisdiction over proceedings to revoke a motorist's driver’s license because the court failed to hold a hearing or grant a continuance within the statutorily prescribed 30-day period. Id. at 32. We held that the court did not lose jurisdiction because the statutory period "is directory and not a limitation on the court's jurisdiction.” Id. And we commented that the statute did not specify any consequences for failure to hold the hearing within the 30-day period, which "reinforce[d] the directory nature of the statute! ] ⅜ ⅝ Id.; see also Wenger, 200 Minn. at 437-38, 274 N.W. at 518, 519 (statute held to be directory because it did not provide consequences for the district court's failure to issue an order within the 5-month time limit after the matter was submitted to the court). That the presence of consequences informs the determination of whether a statute is mandatory or directory, however, does not address whether the statute operates to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Heller therefore does not answer the question presented in this case.

      . Other states have recognized that once the district court obtains subject matter jurisdiction, “a later failure to follow statutory requirements does not divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Such a failure to follow the statute would amount to an erroneous decision not affecting jurisdiction.” People in Interest of Clinton, 762 P.2d 1381, 1387 (Colo.1988) (citing Prinster v. Dist. Court, 137 Colo. 393, 325 P.2d 938, 942 (1958) (holding that where personal and subject matter jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, the trial court ”ha[s] power to make an erroneous order, as well as a correct one.”) (citation omitted)); see also In re Matthews, 345 S.C. 638, 645, 550 S.E.2d 311 (2001) (holding that the State's failure to comply with a mandatory 60-day time period for a civil commitment trial did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case).

      . Moreover, construing the statute to preclude application of waiver principles would implicate the same separation of powers principles discussed earlier. See State v. Lemmer, 736 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.2007) ("The judicial branch governs procedural matters * * *."). To avoid these concerns, we construe the statute as permitting application of waiver principles.

      . Because the court initially did not set a date for the merits hearing, the court-appointed examiners were not alerted about an immediate deadline to tender their reports. See Minn.Stat. § 253B.07, subd. 5 (2006) (explaining that examination reports are due 48 hours before a commitment hearing). Indeed, only the county's examiner had submitted his report when Giem brought his motion to dismiss in February 2006.

      . The district court suggested that the legislature did not intend the second provision'— the right to demand an immediate hearing— to apply to patients whom the government seeks to commit as an SPP and/or SDP. The legislature expressed no such exception in the language of the statute, and we are without authority to create one.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PAGE, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    AFTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRESS, Relator, v. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Respondent.
    No. A07-3.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Dec. 13, 2007.

      Richard M. Gaalswyk, Cottage Grove, MN, for Relator.
    Doug Johnson, Washington County Attorney, Kari A. Lindstrom, Richard D. Hodsdon, Assistant County Attorneys, Stillwater, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

In this case, we review the final order of the Minnesota Tax Court denying an exemption from payment of real property taxes assessed in 2003, 2004, and 2005 for property owned by Afton Historical Society Press (Afton), a publishing house. Af-ton sought the exemption as an institution of purely public charity under Minn.Stat. § 272.02, subd. 7 (2006). The tax court, applying the six factors we set forth in North Star Research Institute v. County of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 6, 236 N.W.2d 754, 757 (1975), denied Afton the exemption for the tax years in question. We reverse.

Afton is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation under Minn.Stat. ch. 317A that publishes books about Minnesota history and culture. Its articles of incorporation require it to “be operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes.” Af-ton’s mission statement states:

The Afton Historical Society Press publishes regional books that explore and celebrate Minnesota culture and history. All of our books, including our books for young people, adhere to high standards of scholarship, literary value, design, and production.
We seek out the largest possible local, national, and international audience for our books through wholesale and retail outlets.
We provide books and curriculum packages free-of-charge to schools and public libraries through donor programs, including our Books-for-Schools program.
We also promote and extend the reach of our publications with author programs and events, museum exhibitions, and public television documentaries.

Afton typically creates and develops the idea for the book, finds an author, editor, and illustrations for the book, raises the necessary funding, ushers the book through all stages of the publishing process, and publicizes and markets the book upon completion.

Afton sells its books through its catalog, through the internet, and by working with book distributors that market its books to libraries and retailers, although the price Afton sets for each book covers less than half of the cost of publication. Afton also publishes learning and activity books on various topics that, along with other Afton publications, are donated to schools in Minnesota through its Books-for-Schools program. Afton also produces a number of books on a contract basis. Revenues from these contract publishing ventures are used to support Afton’s general operations. During the years in question, Af-ton’s revenues from book sales and contract publishing were less than half of its costs. To make up the difference, Afton solicited donations from a variety of individuals and organizations. Some of these donations were designated for specific publishing projects and the Books-for-Schools program; others were made to cover Afton’s general operating expenses.

Based on the record as a whole, and recognizing that property tax exemptions are to be strictly construed, the tax court concluded that Afton was not an institution of purely public charity exempt from real property taxation under Minn.Stat. § 272.02, subd. 7.

Because all property is presumed to be taxable, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to an exemption. Croixdale, Inc. v. County of Washington, 726 N.W.2d 483, 487 (Minn.2007). Exemptions from property tax liability for institutions of purely public charity are to be strictly construed. Am. Ass’n of Cereal Chemists v. County of Dakota, 454 N.W.2d 912, 914 (Minn.1990). Nevertheless, as we observed in Christian Business Men’s Committee of Minneapolis v. State, 228 Minn. 549, 559, 38 N.W.2d 803, 811 (1949):

Although it is a general rule that constitutional provisions exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed, such provisions, though not subject to extension by construction or implication, are to be given a reasonable, natural, and practical interpretation in the light of modern conditions in order to effectuate the purpose for which the exemption is granted.

We review tax court decisions to determine whether the court’s decisions are supported by the evidence and in conformity with the law. Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, 691 N.W.2d 831, 835 (Minn.2005). We will affirm the tax court “when, after an independent review of the record, there is sufficient evidence in the record upon which the tax court could have reasonably based its conclusion.” Care Inst., Inc.Maplewood v. County of Ramsey, 576 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Minn.1998). We review the tax court’s legal determinations de novo. Inter generational Living and Health Care of Eagan, LLC v. County of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412, 419 (Minn.2005).

The tax court analyzed this case using the six factors set out in our decision in North Star:

(1) whether the stated purpose of the undertaking is to be helpful to others without immediate expectation of material reward; (2) whether the entity involved is supported by donations and gifts in whole or in part; (3) whether the recipients of the “charity” are required to pay for the assistance received in whole or in part; (4) whether the income received from gifts and donations and charges to users produces a profit to the charitable institution; (5) whether the beneficiaries of the “charity” are restricted or unrestricted and, if restricted, whether the class of persons to whom the charity is made available is one having a reasonable relationship to the charitable objectives; (6) whether dividends, in form or substance, or assets upon dissolution are available to private interests.

306 Minn, at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757 (citations omitted). The tax court recognized that an entity that qualifies as an institution of purely public charity need not satisfy every North Star factor. Mayo Found. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 306 Minn. 25, 36, 236 N.W.2d 767, 773 (1975). Nevertheless, based on the record as a whole, the tax court found that Afton satisfied only North Star factors one, four, and six, and was not exempt from taxation as an institution of purely public charity. As we explain below, we conclude that the North Star analysis is not appropriate in this case because Afton used the property in question for both charitable and commercial purposes. We apply instead the test we used in Christian Business Men’s Committee, which permits commercial use of otherwise exempt property so long as that commercial use is incidental to the charitable use. 228 Minn, at 561, 38 N.W.2d at 812. Because Afton’s use of its real property for commercial purposes was incidental to its use for charitable purposes, we conclude that the property qualifies for exemption during the years in question.

We first address the tax court’s application of North Star in this case. The tax court applied the North Star factors to Afton based on the following language from our opinion in Maplewood: “Resolution of a given case under Minn.Stat. § 272.02, subd. 1(6), requires an analysis of the facts of that case in light of the North Star factors with each case being decided on its own merits.” 576 N.W.2d at 738.

That language from Maplewood, however, must be understood in the context of that case. In that case, Maple-wood, an assisted living facility, argued that it was entitled to an exemption from property taxes “because a nursing home was found to be exempt in Assembly Homes, an assisted living complex was found to be exempt in Inter-Faith, and because an organization related to it was found to be exempt by the tax court in Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville.” 576 N.W.2d at 738. That is, Maplewood argued it was entitled to an exemption based not on its own merits but under the doctrine of stare decisis. Id. at 737. We rejected Maplewood’s stare decisis argument with the observation that each case must be “decided on its own merits.” Id. at 738. We did not intend to dictate the rigid application of the six North Star factors in every case. Indeed, doing so would have been contrary to our oft-repeated instructions that the North Star factors are only guides for analysis, e.g., Mayo Found., 306 Minn, at 36, 236 N.W.2d at 773, and that each case must be decided on its own facts, e.g., Chateau Cmty. Hous. Ass’n, Inc. v. County of Hennepin, 452 N.W.2d 240, 243 (Minn.1990).

We therefore reiterate the comments we made in Under the Rainbow: if one or more of the North Star factors are not helpful in assessing whether an organization is an institution of purely public charity, those factors need not be analyzed, and if other analytical tools are more helpful than the North Star factors, they should be used instead. Slip op. at 8.

Although we reject the tax court’s notion that the North Star factors must be applied to Afton, that does not answer the question of whether the North Star factors should be applied to Afton. The North Star factors were drawn from cases dealing with “organizations which were engaged in charitable undertakings in the traditional sense — care for the sick, the aged, and the infirm; education of young people, hospital care for the poor; facilities to promote the moral and educational welfare of youth; institutions for religious education.” 306 Minn, at 5-6, 236 N.W.2d at 756-57. Our post-North Star decisions dealing with such entities as assisted living facilities, low-income and student housing, and health care have all employed the North Star analysis. Arguably, each of these cases has involved, in the language of North Star, an entity “engaged in charitable undertakings in the traditional sense” and perhaps we therefore have not been confronted with a case in which the North Star approach is not useful.

But we did not apply the North Star factors to North Star itself, and therefore our understanding of when the North Star analysis may not be helpful should begin there. North Star was a contract research organization that performed applied research for government agencies and private corporations on a cost-plus basis. 306 Minn, at 4, 236 N.W.2d at 756. Upon completion, the research work project became the property of the client requesting it. Id. We noted two “distinctive characteristics of North Star which make its situation so different from those of charities in the traditional sense that reference to” the North Star factors was “of limited value.” Id. at 7, 236 N.W.2d at 757. First, we noted that a public benefit “is not the immediate objective of the undertaking.” Id. at 8, 236 N.W.2d at 758. That is, North Star’s

concern is not to develop knowledge in the abstract, with possible indirect benefit to private enterprise, but instead to apply research tools to the particular problems of a particular business enterprise for the specific purpose of developing data or processes which can be turned into a profit for the beneficiary of the information.

Id. at 7, 236 N.W.2d at 757-58. We acknowledged that the public could benefit from the research conducted by North Star, but any such public benefit would be “indirect.” Id. at 8, 236 N.W.2d at 758. In contrast, the public benefit from more traditional charitable activities is more tangible:

Persons relieved from poverty and illness and the restraints of old age demand less of, and contribute more to, the economic well-being of a community than do those who are not so relieved. A person who receives the benefits of an education, whether theoretical or practical, may add more to the well-being of a society than one who is not so advantaged. It has been recognized that religious education and training add to the moral strength of a community.

Id. at 7, 236 N.W.2d at 757.

Second, we noted that “information developed as a result of [North Star’s] research is not made available to the public generally or to industry generally,” and therefore North Star’s research did not have a “public purpose in a sense comparable to such purposes as the relief of poverty and sickness, the general dissemination of knowledge, and the encouragement of religion, science, and the arts.” Id. at 8, 236 N.W.2d at 758. Indeed, we characterized this aspect of North Star’s work as “the critical one.” Id.

Here, we conclude that one of Afton’s activities — its contract publishing work— is, like the contract research performed by North Star, “so different from those of charities in the traditional sense,” id. at 7, 236 N.W.2d at 757, that reference to the North Star factors is of limited value in evaluating it. During the years at issue, Afton published several books under contract with particular organizations and individuals. The organization or individual paid Afton (or solicited others to make contributions to Afton) to publish the book and, significantly, upon completion all or virtually all of the copies of the book typically went to the contracting individual or organization.

Like North Star’s contract research, Af-ton’s contract publishing directly benefited only the entity who contracted for publication of the particular book; any public benefit was, in the words of North Star, “an indirect one and * * * not the immediate objective of the undertaking.” Id. And, like North Star’s contract research, the books published by Afton under contract typically were “not made available to the public generally.” Id. As a result, Afton’s contract publishing was neither a “public purpose” nor a charitable use of its property. Rather, Afton’s contract publishing must be viewed as a commercial activity. Because the North Star factors derive from cases involving traditionally charitable activities, their application to commercial activities is, as we indicated in North Star, of limited value. The tax court therefore erred as a matter of law in analyzing the status of Afton’s real property using only the six North Star factors.

When in the past we have been faced with property used for both commercial and arguably charitable purposes, we have applied a test very different from North Star. In Christian Business Men’s Committee, we considered the status of a multistory building owned and used by a nonprofit organization. 228 Minn, at 551, 38 N.W.2d at 807. The organization’s use of its property was mixed. The first floor of the building was rented to commercial tenants, and we held that portion of the property was not exempt from property taxation. Id. at 555-58, 38 N.W.2d at 809-10. But the second and third floors of the building were used for meetings conducted by various clubs and societies, as a restaurant serving both staff and the general public, and as a drop-in child care center— in other words, for both commercial and charitable purposes. Id. at 552-53, 38 N.W.2d at 807-08.

We first concluded that the Christian Business Men’s Committee itself qualified as an institution of purely public charity, noting that the organization was “a Christian laymen’s organization dedicated to the unselfish purpose of teaching and exemplifying the gospel by precept and by a beneficent service extended to all members of the public without regard to race or creed.” Id. at 554-55, 38 N.W.2d at 808. We then observed:

An institution of purely public charity enjoys tax exemption only with respect to property — and not with respect to the income therefrom — presently, exclusively, and directly applied to, and actually used in, the promotion of its charitable purposes; but such property may in part, without loss of the tax-exemption privilege, be devoted to activities which of and by themselves are normally commercial, such as the operation of a restaurant and similar services, if such restaurant or other services are subordinate to, and are reasonably necessary in meeting a need integrated with, its purely charitable program— such as providing reasonably satisfactory accommodations for the institution’s personnel and charitable activities clientele — and such tax-exemption privilege is not lost although such food or other services are incidentally and without deliberate design made available to the general public.

Id. at 561, 38 N.W.2d at 812 (second emphasis added). We therefore held that the presence of the restaurant did not prevent the second and third floors of the property from qualifying for a tax exemption because the commercial food service was “incidental to petitioner’s charitable activities and * * * reasonably necessary in the furtherance of its purely charitable program” and “has not been operated for the purpose of deriving a profit.” Id. at 561, 38 N.W.2d at 812.

We applied the same approach in Mayo Foundation, apparently the only other case we have decided that presented both charitable and commercial use of the same property. We acknowledged that the Mayo entities were engaged in commercial activities, namely, the private practice of medicine. 306 Minn, at 38, 236 N.W.2d at 774. In fact, during the years at issue in that case, the income generated by the Mayo Clinic’s private practice of medicine constituted “the principal source of income of the Mayo Foundation.” Id. at 29, 236 N.W.2d at 769. But the Mayo entities also conducted extensive charitable work during the years at issue funded by revenues from the private practice of medicine, including operating the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, id. at 28, 236 N.W.2d at 769, providing medical care regardless of the financial circumstances of the patient, id. at 30, 236 N.W.2d at 770, providing free medical care for patients at the Rochester State Hospital, id. at 30-31, 236 N.W.2d at 770, and providing free surgical treatment for patients at other state hospitals and state penal institutions, id. at 31, 236 N.W.2d at 770. We concluded that the Mayo entities were institutions of purely public charity, despite their commercial practice of medicine, because their commercial activities were “incidental to” and “inextricably interwoven with” their educational and research activities, id. at 38, 236 N.W.2d at 774, which we characterized as “charitable activities in the traditional and strict sense,” id. at 36, 236 N.W.2d at 773.

Therefore, when real property is used for both commercial and arguably charitable purposes, the commercial use of the property will not prevent the property from being exempt from property taxation as an institution of purely public charity if the commercial use is incidental to and reasonably necessary in furtherance of the entity’s charitable activities.

Applying these principles, we first consider whether Afton’s use of the property for other than contract publishing was charitable during the years at issue. We conclude that the tax court erred in concluding that it was not. As we held in Under the Rainbow, if an organization is to be deemed an institution of purely public charity, it must necessarily demonstrate that it provides a substantial proportion of its goods or services to recipients free of charge or at considerably less than either market value or cost. Slip op. at 28. Here, the tax court found that Afton’s Books-for-Schools program did not satisfy this test because Afton itself received payment for the donated books from another source. But the focus of the test is on the beneficiaries of the proposed charity and, as the tax court found, the schools and students who benefited from Afton’s Books-for-Schools program received the books free of charge. When an organization provides goods or services free of charge, the organization will necessarily have received the means to provide those goods or services from “another source.”

In this case, Afton solicited donations in order to fund a portion of the Books-for-Schools program. In some cases, the donor indicated a preference for the recipient of the donated materials; in other cases, the recipient was chosen by Afton. That a donor has earmarked or restricted its donation does not change the analysis of whether the beneficiaries of the charity receive goods or services free or at substantially reduced cost. The tax court therefore erred in not considering Afton’s Books-for-Schools program in its evaluation of North Star factor three.

We also conclude the tax court erred in its finding with respect to Afton’s sales of books to the general public. As the tax court found, Afton regularly sells its books to the general public at a fraction of their cost. Afton prices its books substantially below cost because doing so is an integral part of Afton’s charitable purpose, thus its book sales satisfy the threshold test. Considering the proportion of Afton’s books that are donated to schools free of charge and sold to the public at a loss, we conclude that Afton provides a substantial proportion of its goods free of charge or at considerably less than cost.

In addition, Afton’s articles of incorporation limit its operation to charitable and educational purposes. Its corporate mission statement similarly calls for it to provide books and curriculum packages free of charge to schools and public libraries. It did not earn a profit in any of the years at issue and its assets are not available to private interests upon dissolution. Afton is therefore an institution of purely public charity.

Finally, we consider whether Af-ton’s commercial use of the property for contract publishing is, in the language of Christian Business Men’s Committee, not “for the purpose of deriving a profit” and also “subordinate to, and * * ⅜ reasonably necessary in meeting a need integrated with, its purely charitable program.” 228 Minn, at 561, 38 N.W.2d at 812 (emphasis omitted). Afton’s contract book sales met this test during the tax years at issue. First, Afton’s contract publishing was conducted for the purpose of contributing to payment of Afton’s general overhead expenses, rather than to generate a profit for Afton as a whole. Considering that Afton’s expenses generally exceeded its revenue, such contract publishing was reasonably necessary in attempting to meet Afton’s general overhead expenses. Second, Afton’s contract publishing was subordinate to its general trade publishing in terms of the number of books published in the years at issue.

The tax court therefore erred in denying Afton an exemption from payment of real property taxes assessed in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Because each tax year must be evaluated individually, our holding is limited to taxes assessed in those years.

Reversed.

      . Referring to Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County, 273 Minn. 197, 140 N.W.2d 336 (1966).

      . Referring to Inter-Faith Social Services, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 376 N.W.2d 687 (Minn.1985).

      . Referring to Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443 (Minn.2000).

      . Croixdale, Inc. v. County of Washington, 726 N.W.2d 483 (Minn.2007); Care Inst., Inc.-Maplewood Care Inst., Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443 (Minn.2000); Community Memorial Home at Osakis, Minnesota, Inc. v. County of Douglas, 573 N.W.2d 83 (Minn.1997).

      . Worthington Dormitory, Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 292 N.W.2d 276 (Minn.1980); Rio-Vista Non-Profit Hous. Corp. v. Ramsey County, 277 N.W.2d 187 (Minn.1979).

      . SHARE v. Comm'r of Revenue, 363 N.W.2d 47 (Minn.1985).


author: /s/Helen M. Meyer Associate Justice

text:
    In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Timothy Michael BLOCK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 317950.
    No. A07-1867.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Dec. 20, 2007.
   ORDER

On October 17, 2007, this court suspended respondent Timothy Michael Block from the practice of law for a period of 60 days. Respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order, except for successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, and requests reinstatement. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility does not oppose the request.

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Timothy Michael Block is conditionally reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, subject to his successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination within one year of the October 17, 2007, suspension order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Helen M. Meyer

Associate Justice


author: HUDSON, Judge.

text:
    Thomas William WESTBY, petitioner, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant.
    No. A07-0914.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Dec. 4, 2007.
    As Modified Dec. 5, 2007.
    Jeffrey B. Ring, Jeffrey B. Ring & Associates, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
    Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Jeffrey F. Lebowski, Jeffrey Bilcik, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by HUDSON, Presiding Judge; WILLIS, Judge; and MINGE, Judge.
   OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a district court decision rescinding the revocation of respondent Thomas Westby’s driver’s license in an implied-consent case. Appellant Commissioner of Public Safety argues that the district court erred in ruling that a state trooper did not have the authority to stop respondent because the traffic infraction did not occur on a state trunk highway. Appellant argues that the state trooper had authority to stop respondent because (a) he had specific statutory authority under Minn.Stat. § 299D.03, subd. l(b)(12) (2006), which provides that peace officers may make arrests for public offenses committed in their presence anywhere in the state; (b) he was acting in the course and scope of his employment under Minn.Stat. § 629.40, subd. 3 (2006); and (c) he was acting in his capacity as a citizen who observed a traffic violation committed in his presence. Respondent filed a notice of review challenging the district court’s factual findings.

Because we conclude that the state trooper had the authority under Minn.Stat. § 299D.03 to stop and arrest respondent, we reverse the district court’s decision rescinding the revocation of respondent’s driver’s license. Because the district court did not make any factual findings regarding the propriety of the stop, we remand.

FACTS

Around midnight on November 22, 2006, a Minnesota State Patrol trooper was on County Road 7 in Cook County when he noticed a vehicle stopped at a stop sign on County Road 15. The driver of the vehicle was later identified as respondent Thomas Westby. The state trooper was approximately a quarter-mile away from respondent’s vehicle when he saw it turn left onto the Gunflint Trail without signaling.

The trooper followed respondent, and as he neared respondent’s vehicle, the trooper noticed respondent weaving within the lane of traffic and driving briefly over the fog line onto the gravel shoulder of the Gunflint Trail. The trooper then activated his lights to pull respondent over. After activating his lights, the trooper noticed that respondent drove over the center line. The trooper stated that respondent “wasn’t responding to my flashing lights” and that it “took approximately 18 seconds ... for him to indicate ... that there was any trooper behind him that wanted to pull him over.... I mean, there [were] no brake lights [for] 18 seconds.... [Respondent] didn’t slow down or anything.” After stopping respondent, the trooper administered an Intoxilyzer test, which showed that respondent had an alcohol concentration over the legal limit. Respondent’s driver’s license was subsequently revoked under Minnesota’s implied-consent law.

On December 1, 2006, respondent requested an implied-consent hearing before the district court to review his license revocation and criminal DWI case under Minn.Stat. § 169A.53 (2006) (governing judicial review of driver’s license revocations). During the February 6, 2007 hearing, the district court asked the parties: “Maybe I’m missing something here.... County Road 15 ... is not a state highway. ... Is it legally significant to anybody why the Trooper ... is patrolling on county roads[?]” Neither party answered in the affirmative. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court took the matter under advisement.

On February 15, 2007, the district court wrote to both parties asking that they address whether, in light of the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 1 (2006), “the patrolling outside and away from trunk highway 61 (the only trunk highway in the area) and not in the process of assisting or responding to an emergency has a bearing on the State’s entitlement to go forward with this prosecution.” Both parties responded to the district court’s request by letter. Respondent argued that a state trooper’s powers of traffic enforcement are limited to trunk highways. Appellant argued that the trooper in this case was “acting within the course and scope of his employment” when he stopped respondent’s vehicle.

On April 25, 2007, the district court issued a written order dismissing the proceedings against respondent. The district court stated that “[t]he Court accepts as established for the purposes of this Order the representations set out in the letter Memorandum of the Commissioner under date of 3 April 2007, including particularly at the time of the stop, the Trooper was on ‘patrol’ in the city of Grand Marais.” The district court also acknowledged that there are “a number of statutory provisions that justify stops by troopers not on or adjacent to a state trunk highway,” and that

troopers may travel to or from state trunk highways to get from their homes to the highway, to get from their duty station office (in Cook County at the Cook County Law Enforcement Center), or indeed, for a variety of circumstances, including the investigation of accidents and interviewing of witnesses in locations not on the state highways. The law makes clear that what they observe under such circumstances does allow them to act.

But the district court went on to conclude that “[tjhere is no authority ... for troopers to take it upon themselves to decide when and under what circumstances to patrol city streets, county or township roads, or, indeed which streets or roads to patrol beyond state Trunk Highways.” The district court held that “the Court, on its own motion and without request by any party, determines and concludes there is a lack of jurisdiction for the case to go forward and orders or directs that the proceedings be dismissed.” This appeal follows.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court err by dismissing the proceedings against respondent and rescinding the revocation of respondent’s driver’s license?
II. Were the district court’s factual findings erroneous?

ANALYSIS

I

Appellant argues that the district court erred by dismissing the proceedings against respondent and rescinding the revocation of respondent’s driver’s license because Minn.Stat. § 299D.03, subd. l(b)(12) (2006), provides clear, unambiguous statutory authority for the state trooper to legally stop and arrest respondent. We agree.

Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.1998). “When interpreting a statute, we first look to see whether the statute’s language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous. A statute is only ambiguous when the language therein is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn.2000) (quoting and citation omitted).

Members of the Minnesota State Patrol are permitted to “enforce the provisions of the law relating to the protection of and use of trunk highways” and to “exercise upon all trunk highways the same powers with respect to the enforcement of laws relating to crimes, as sheriffs and police officers.” Minn.Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 1(b)(1), (7) (2006). Section 299D.03, subdivision l(b)(12), also provides that Minnesota State Patrol troopers shall have the power and authority “as peace officers to make arrests for public offenses committed in their presence anywhere within the state. Persons arrested for violations other than traffic violations shall be referred forthwith to the appropriate local law enforcement agency for further investigation or disposition.” “Trunk highways” are “all roads established or to be established under the provisions of article 14, section 2 of the Constitution of the state of Minnesota.” Minn.Stat. § 160.02, subd. 29 (2006).

Neither party argues that the language of section 299D.03 is ambiguous, and upon careful examination, we can find no ambiguity. Therefore, we give the statutory language its plain meaning and do not engage in any further construction. State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153, 159 (Minn.2004). We conclude that the plain language of subdivision l(b)(12) grants state troopers the authority to stop and arrest individuals for a public offense anywhere in the state, provided the offense is committed in the presence of the trooper. Accordingly, the state trooper had the authority to stop respondent on County Road 15.

Respondent maintains that to give meaning to subdivision l(b)(12) would be to “render[ ] the first portions of the statute a nullity — completely superfluous.” We disagree.

This court must interpret a statute, “whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions; ‘no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ” In re Eleven, 736 N.W.2d 707, 709 (Minn.App.2007) (quotation omitted). We are “to read and construe a statute as a whole and must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations.” Id. (quotation omitted). To adopt respondent’s interpretation of 299D.03 would be to create redundancy where hone exists.

Under subsections 1(b)(1) and (7) of section 299D.03, the subsections which most closely resemble l(b)(12), troopers have the authority to enforce both traffic and criminal laws on state trunk highways. But these subsections are readily distinguishable from l(b)(12), which allows state troopers to arrest anywhere in the state but limits that power to public offenses committed in his or her presence. We conclude that subdivision l(b)(12) is not duplicative.

Respondent also argues that subdivision l(b)(12) permits a trooper to make arrests anywhere in the state for violations occurring in his or her presence, but “first they have to be in the place they are observing the violation legally, under all the patrol limitations already set forth in the statute.” The plain language of § 299D.03, subd. l(b)(12), does not support this interpretation. The statutory language specifically states that a trooper can arrest a person for a public offense “anywhere within the state,” the only limit being that the offense occur in the state trooper’s presence. Id. The authority granted by subdivision l(b)(12) is not dependent upon, but rather an independent addition to, the powers and authority granted by the remaining provisions of subdivision 1(b).

For all of these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred when it concluded that the state trooper did not have the authority to stop and arrest respondent on a road that was not a state trunk highway, and we reverse its decision. Because we reverse on this ground, we do not address appellant’s remaining arguments.

II

By notice of review, respondent argues that (1) the district court did not actually make factual findings regarding whether the state trooper had sufficient reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop; and (2) if the district court did make such findings, they were erroneous.

Although the district court specifically referenced the testimony of the state trooper in its order and described the evidence presented regarding the trooper’s observations and actions, it did not make any specific factual findings or credibility determinations. The language of the district court’s order and memorandum suggests that the court was reluctant, or thought it unnecessary, to make factual findings because it concluded dismissal was warranted on legal grounds. Because the district court did not make any findings regarding whether there was reasonable suspicion to justify a stop, we remand for such findings.

DECISION

Under MinmStat. § 299D.03, subd. l(b)(12) (2006), the state trooper had the authority to stop and arrest respondent for a public offense committed in his presence on a road that was not a state trunk highway.

Reversed and remanded.

      . It appears that the court intended to dismiss the criminal proceedings and to rescind the license revocation and we have so construed the order. The state’s appeal of the dismissal of criminal charges was untimely and is not before us. State v. Westby, No. A07-962 (Minn.App. June 5, 2007) (order dismissing appeal).