Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Smith v. Barry, 17 N.W.2d 324.

38 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application of United States Solar Corporation and USS Water Fowl Solar LLC for … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This compels our conclusion that preservation of “prime agricultural soil” is not a 7 legally sufficient basis for denial of a CUP, as “[t]he rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the cons truction of [county] ordinances.” Smith v. Barry
Buhl v. State 922 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buhl v. State 922 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Smith v. Barry , 219 Minn. 182 , , 327 (1944).
Thomas A. Ruether, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
It is also our duty to “construe statutes and ordinances to avoid absurd restrictions or results.”
Jeffery R. Schultz v. Scott A. Mende, and third party v. City of Madison Lake, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeffery R. Schultz v. Scott A. Mende, and third party v. City of Madison Lake, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When reviewing an ordinance, “[i]t is the duty of courts to construe statutes and ordinances to avoid absurd restrictions or results.” Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 787 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2010
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 787 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2010
E.g., Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187
In Re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund Ex Rel. City of St. Mary's … 759 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund Ex Rel. City of St. Mary's … 759 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
urt’s interpretation of an ordinance: terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning; “zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against [a] city and in favor of [a] property owner”; and “zoning ordinance[s] must always be considered in light of [their] underlying policy [goals].” Frank’s Nursery Sales, -09 (Minn.1980); see also Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187 , (“[R]ules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances.”).
Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Board of Commissioners 756 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2008
Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Board of Commissioners 756 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2008
See, e.g., Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187
State v. Otterstad 734 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2007
State v. Otterstad 734 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2007
“The rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances.” Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corp. 721 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2006
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, see also Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187 , (instructing that statute must be considered as whole to harmonize and give effect to all provisions).
Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
But “[t]he rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances,” Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187 , and “a statute is to be construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” Id.; see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , (different provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other).
Grossman v. Aerial Farm Service, Inc. 384 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Grossman v. Aerial Farm Service, Inc. 384 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187
Richie v. Elmquist 168 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 1969
Richie v. Elmquist 168 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 1969
Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 .
State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 .
Lee v. Lee 80 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1957
Lee v. Lee 80 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1957
Co. 247 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. (2d) 433 ; Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 239 Minn. 276, 282 , 58 N. W. (2d) 561, 565 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 483 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814, 818 ; Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 191 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324, 328 .
Hardy v. Anderson 63 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1954
Hardy v. Anderson 63 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1954
4 Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 ; Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 239 Minn. 276 , 58 N. W. (2d) 561 ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
Maher v. Roisner 57 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1953
Maher v. Roisner 57 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1953
Orchard v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 236 Minn. 42 , 51 N. W. (2d) 645 ; State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Rom v. Calhoun, 227 Minn. 143 , 34 N. W. (2d) 359 ; Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 .
Seitzer v. Halverson 42 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1950
State v. Becker 42 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1950
State v. Becker 42 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1950
Co. 208 Minn. 240 , ; Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 .
Seitzer v. Halverson 42 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1950
Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 ; Himmel v. Orliski, 221 Minn. 192 , 21 N. W. (2d) 605 ; Olson v. Evert, 224 Minn. 528 , 28 N. W. (2d) 753 .
Garey v. Michelsen 35 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1949
Garey v. Michelsen 35 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1949
Co. 221 Minn. 205 , 21 N. W. (2d) 522 ; Schendel v. Klein, 215 Minn. 73 , 9 N. W. (2d) 342 ; Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324 .