Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC., 80 N.W.2d 62.

39 citing documents.

A19-0507 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And “a particular provision of a statute cannot be read out of context but must be ta ken together with other related provisions to determine its meaning.” Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc.
Nell Mathews, et al. Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[A] particular provision of a statute cannot be read out of co ntext but must be taken together with other related provi sions to determine its meaning .” Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc.
Yer Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti and SFM Risk Solutions, North Memorial Health Care and Mercy Hospital, Relators, … Minn. 2015
Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti 865 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2015
Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti 865 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2015
Adopting the Relators’ interpretation would violate our “obligation” to read the statute as a whole and to ensure “that all of the statute’s terms are effective.” see also Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360 , (“It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a particular provision of a statute cannot be read out of context but must be taken together with other related provisions to determine its meaning.”).
Yer Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti and SFM Risk Solutions, North Memorial Health Care and Mercy Hospital, Relators, … Minn. 2015
Adopting the Relators’ interpretation would violate our “obligation” to read the statute as a whole and to ensure “that all of the statute’s terms are effective.” Nelson v. 6 Schlener, see also Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360, (“It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a particular provision of a statute cannot be read out of context but must be taken together with other related provisions to determine its meaning.”).
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership 827 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2013
Nestell v. State 758 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Nestell v. State 758 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360-61 , -65 (1956).
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
me statute in order to determine the meaning of the particular provision.” ILHC of Eagan, see also *921 Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass’n v. Paster, (recognizing that sections of statute must be read together because arrangement of sections may provide plain meaning); Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360 , (stating that particular provision of statute cannot be read out of context).
State v. Loge 608 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2000
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360
McAfee v. Department of Revenue 514 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
McAfee v. Department of Revenue 514 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, 248 Minn. 357, 360 , (acknowledging as “a cardinal rule of statutory construction” that a particular provision of a statute must be read in context with other related provisions to determine its meaning).
Rochester v. PEOPLE'S CO-OP. POWER ASS'N 466 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rochester v. PEOPLE'S CO-OP. POWER ASS'N 466 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, 248 Minn.357
City of Rochester v. People's Cooperative Power Ass'n 466 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of Rochester v. People's Cooperative Power Ass'n 466 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, 248 Minn. 357
Illg v. Forum Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1989
Illg v. Forum Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1989
See, e.g., Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224, 229 , Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360 , Mattson v. Flynn, 216 Minn. 354, 358
Lange v. Lange Underground Construction, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lange v. Lange Underground Construction, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360
Reserve Mining Co. v. Cooke 372 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reserve Mining Co. v. Cooke 372 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
§ 645.-16 (1984); Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357
In Re the Guardianship of Fingerholtz 357 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Guardianship of Fingerholtz 357 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 360
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 93 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1958
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 93 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1958
See, §§ 645.08 and 645.17(2); Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc. 248 Minn. 357 , 80 N. W. (2d) 62 ; City of St.
Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc. 248 Minn. 357 , 80 N. W. (2d) 62 .
Tollefson v. Ehlers 90 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1958
Tollefson v. Ehlers 90 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1958
9 Cf. Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc. 248 Minn. 357 , 80 N. W. (2d) 62 .
In Re Trust Created by Phillips 90 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1958
In Re Trust Created by Phillips 90 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1958
8 Kollodge v. F. & L. Appliances, Inc. 248 Minn. 357 , 80 N. W. (2d) 62 .
Kachman v. Blosberg 87 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1958
Kachman v. Blosberg 87 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1958
Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc. 248 Minn. 357 , 80 N. W. (2d) 62 .
Satter v. Turner 86 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1957

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by