Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Burnquist, 11 N.W.2d 776.

27 citing documents.

State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49, 53
Newmech Companies v. Independent School District No. 206 540 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1995
Newmech Companies v. Independent School District No. 206 540 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1995
Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28, 34 , Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , cf. Muskegon Bldg.
In Re Blodgett 490 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re Blodgett 490 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49, 53 , ).
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P. 361 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1985
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P. 361 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1985
at 180 (quoting Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49, 53 , ).
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , 282 N.W.
Getter v. Travel Lodge 260 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1977
Getter v. Travel Lodge 260 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1977
The void-for-vagueness principle in civil law is different than in criminal law, although this court in Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , upon which the employer chiefly relies, did not articulate the difference.
State v. Simmons 158 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
State v. Ruffin 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Ruffin 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N. W. (2d) 699 ; Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 ; State v. Bell, 280 Minn. 55 , 157 N. W. (2d) 760 .
State v. Simmons 158 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 .
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 .
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
52 See, State v. Parker, 183 Minn. 588 , ; State v. North *472 west Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 ; State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N. W. (2d) 699 .
Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
See, Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 .
State v. End 45 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1950
State v. End 45 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1950
As stated in Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49, 53 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776, 778 ; * when called upon to construe a penal statute, courts should not go beyond the clear meaning of the statute and spell out something not plainly indicated by the language used.
State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co. 21 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1946
State v. Bolsinger 21 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1946
State v. Bolsinger 21 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1946
Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; Connally v. General Const. Co. 269 U. S. 385 , 46 S. Ct. 126 , 70 L. ed. 322; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216 , 34 S. Ct. 853 , 58 L. ed. 1284; Rottschaef