Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Suess, 52 N.W.2d 409.

78 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeal by Nobility Home Health Care, Inc. A21-1477, … Minn. 2024
In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeal by Nobility Home Health Care, Inc. A21-1477, … Minn. 2024
If they do, we then assess whether some of the definitions of the word we are interpreting share that quality (and so remain potential 17 does not compel a different result.
Minn. 2021
Under this canon, “the meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act may be determined by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases.”
A19-1701 A19-1702 A19-1703 Minn. 2020
(“[T]he meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act may be determined by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases.”).
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
A court may ascertain the meaning of doubtful words in a statute “by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174
State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
1830 , 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008); see also State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182 , (“[T]he meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act may be determined by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases.”).
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
It must only furnish criteria that people “of common intelligence who come in contact with the statute may use with reasonable safety in determining its command.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.P. 747 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.P. 747 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2008
Co., (“We have stated that the ‘meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act may be determined by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases.’ ” (quoting State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182 , )).
In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036 724 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036 724 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Courts have a duty to uphold legislative enactments as reasonably certain when possible, and should “resort to all acceptable rules of construction to discover a competent and efficient expression of the legislative will.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
21, 1999); see also State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182 , (stating “the meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act may be determined by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases”).
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
It need only furnish criteria that persons “of common intelligence who come in contact with the statute may use with reasonable safety in determining its command.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Courts have a duty to uphold legislative enactments as reasonably certain when possible, and should “resort to all acceptable rules of' construction to discover a competent and efficient expres *319 sion of the legislative will.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 179-80 , -14 (1952).
State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182 , (holding that when words of similar but not equally comprehensive meaning are grouped together, general word is limited by special word).
In Re the Welfare of A.L.F. 579 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.L.F. 579 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182
Wong v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 576 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1998
Wong v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 576 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1998
We have stated that the “meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act may be determined by reference to their association with other associated words and phrases.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 183
Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc. 486 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1992
Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc. 486 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1992
§ 645.08(3); State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 182
St. Paul Companies, Inc. v. Hatch 449 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1989
St. Paul Companies, Inc. v. Hatch 449 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1989
v. Greenman, 255 Minn. 396, 403 , State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
State v. Domke 392 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Domke 392 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
State v. Freeberg 390 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Freeberg 390 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 183
State v. Rudolph 289 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1979
State v. Rudolph 289 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1979
Secondly, this court has already decided, in State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 179, 183 , 415 (1952), whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Schmitt v. McLaughlin 275 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1979
Schmitt v. McLaughlin 275 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 179-83 , -15 (1952).
State v. Harris 244 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1976
State v. Harris 244 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1976
We have held that a statute or ordinance will be found constitutionally defective on grounds of vagueness only if it “* * * is set out in terms so vague that people of common intelligence have to guess at what it means and if they differ as to its application.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 180
Robbinsdale Education Ass'n v. Robbinsdale Federation of Teachers Local 872 239 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1976
Robbinsdale Education Ass'n v. Robbinsdale Federation of Teachers Local 872 239 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1976
Further, it is well established that when the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the language of the entire act must be taken into consideration, and “[i]f the act is reasonably susceptible of two different constructions, one of which will render it constitutional and the other unconstitutional, the former construction must be adopted.” State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 181 , In re Taxes on Property of Cold Spring Granite Co. 271 Minn. 460