Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Arlandson v. Humphrey, 27 N.W.2d 819.

31 citing documents.

Christopher Anthony Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that a court should enforce a statute literally if its language embo dies a definite meani ng which involves no absurdity or contradiction).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A statute is to be enforced literally as it reads, if its language embodies a definite meaning which involves no absurdity or contradiction.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Cf. Montella v. City of Ottertail , (noting that legislature could have used “food” instead of “meals” to include other food service establishments in statute’s coverage); (M inn.
Minn. 2019
hat Staab “consider[ed] whether a statute abrogate[ed] the common law before determining that it D-3 Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (explaining that we can “disregard a statute’s plain meaning only in rare cases where the plain meaning utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (“[L]anguage which is plain and unambiguous requires no construction .
State v. Wenz 779 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wenz 779 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49, 55
Education Minnesota-Chisholm v. Independent School District No. 695 649 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Education Minnesota-Chisholm v. Independent School District No. 695 649 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
§ 645.08(1) (2000); see also Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49, 55 , (“Unless obviously used in a different sense, words in a statute are to be construed in their ordinary, popular sense, — according to the common and approved usage of the language.” (quotation omitted)).
Vezina v. Best Western Inn Maplewood 627 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2001
Vezina v. Best Western Inn Maplewood 627 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2001
Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49, 54 , (“Where there is no uncertainty or ambiguity in the language, the statute speaks for itself.”).
State v. Gorman 546 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1996
State v. Gorman 546 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1996
McCaleb v. Jackson, 307 Minn. 15 , 17 n. 2, , 188 n. 2 (1976); Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49, 54-55
Hyland v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 538 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hyland v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 538 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49, 54 , (where language of statute is certain and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial interpretation).
Newmech Companies v. Independent School District No. 206 540 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1995
State v. Maidi 537 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1995
State v. Maidi 537 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1995
Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49 , see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1994).
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Anoka-Hennepin Education Ass'n v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 305 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1981
Anoka-Hennepin Education Ass'n v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 305 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1981
Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49
A. C. E. Equipment Co. v. Erickson 152 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1967
Mankato Citizens Telephone Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 145 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1966
Mankato Citizens Telephone Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 145 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1966
B. & S. Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co. 218 Minn. 443 , 16 N. W. (2d) 519 ; Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49 , 27 N. W. (2d) 819 .
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49 , 27 N. W. (2d) 819 ; Downing v. Independent School Dist.
Kopio's, Inc. v. Bridgeman Creameries, Inc. 79 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1956
Kopio's, Inc. v. Bridgeman Creameries, Inc. 79 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1956
12 Cf. M. S. A. 645.08(3), which provides: “General words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words;” 13 Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49 , 27 N. W. (2d) 819 .
City of St. Louis Park v. King 75 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1956
City of St. Louis Park v. King 75 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1956
In Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49 , 27 N. W. (2d) 819 , this court held that words of a statute are to be given their ordinary, popular meaning, according to common and approved usage of the language unless obviously used in a different sense, and in State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 161 , 21 N. W. (2d) 480, 486 , that “Where, in addition to the abse
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District v. City of St. Paul 61 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1953
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District v. City of St. Paul 61 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1953
2 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470 , 37 S. Ct. 192 , 61 L. ed. 442; W. H. Barber Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 227 Minn. 77 , 34 N. W. (2d) 710 ; Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49 , 27 N. W. (2d) 819 ; City of Minneapolis v. Village of Brooklyn Center, 223 Minn. 498 , 27 N. W. (2d) 563 ; Loew v. Hagerle Brothers, 222 Minn. 258 , 24 N. W. (2d) 278 ; Hickok v. Margolis, 221 Minn. 480 , 22 N. W. (2d) 850 ; State and Port Authority of St.