Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Akers v. Akers, 46 N.W.2d 87.

28 citing documents.

State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , Clark v. Pawlenty , , 306 (Minn. 2008) (declining to interpret the word "successor" differently in two different sections of the Minnesota Constitution); Akers v. Akers , 233 Minn. 133 , , 92 (1951) (concluding that the same word used in different subdivisions of a statute must be interpreted to have the same meaning).
In re Ali 931 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Ali 931 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co. , , 524 (Minn. 2017) ; see also Akers v. Akers , 233 Minn. 133 , , 92 (1951) (holding that the same word used in different paragraphs of the same statute must be given the same meaning).
Judy E. Adams, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 892 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 2017
Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 892 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 2017
(declining to interpret the word “successor” differently in different sections of the Minnesota Constitution); see also Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133 , (holding that the same word used in different subdivisions of the same statute must be given the same meaning).
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Marie Sanvik, Below, Becky Toevs Rooney v. Charles W. Sanvik 850 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Marie Sanvik, Below, Becky Toevs Rooney v. Charles W. Sanvik 850 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133, 142
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
Cf. Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133, 141 , (holding that the same word used in different subdivisions of the same statute must be given the same meaning).
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 776 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2009
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 776 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2009
1204 (1932) (“[Tjhere is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”); Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133, 141 , (stating that if “money” is interpreted as not including other property in one paragraph of the statute, it should be interpreted as not including other property in another paragraph).
Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. Paulson 699 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. Paulson 699 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-24 (1979); Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133, 138 , Westerlund v. Peterson, 157 Minn. 379, 381-82 , 197 N.W.
St. Cloud National Bank & Trust Co. v. Brutger 488 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
St. Cloud National Bank & Trust Co. v. Brutger 488 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 138, 138
Boline v. Doty 345 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Boline v. Doty 345 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133
National Sales & Service Co. v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1983
Schroeder, Siegfried, Ryan & Vidas v. Modern Electronic Products, Inc. 295 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1980
Schroeder, Siegfried, Ryan & Vidas v. Modern Electronic Products, Inc. 295 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1980
Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133
Village of New Brighton v. Jamison 278 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1979
Village of New Brighton v. Jamison 278 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1979
Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133
Blazek v. North American Life & Casualty Co. 121 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1963
Blazek v. North American Life & Casualty Co. 121 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1963
4 Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133, 141 , 46 N. W. (2d) 87, 92 .
Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Sauers 47 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1951
Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Sauers 47 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1951
Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133 , 46 N. W. (2d) 87 .