DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 93 N.W.2d 690.

101 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    We consider a statute as a whole “to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.
  • Melissa Lynn Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    (quoting Van Asperan v. Darling Olds, Inc., ).
  • Minn. 2021
    The whole-statute canon is “the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is to be read and construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.
  • Broadway Child Care Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    We also consider a statute “as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.
  • Save Lake Calhoun, Minn. 2020
    We consider a statute as a whole “to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” Van Asperen v. Darlings Olds, Inc.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    8 effective and certain.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.
  • A19-0507 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    v. Schroedl, in order to “harmonize and give effect to all its parts,” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
    We apply “the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is to be read and construed as a whole” and “various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in the light of each other.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.
  • In re Restorff 932 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2019
  • In re Restorff 932 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2019
    Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. , 254 Minn. 62 , , 698 (1958).
  • Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
  • Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
    See Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. , 254 Minn. 62 , , 698 (1958) (stating that "various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in the light of each other.").
  • State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. , 254 Minn. 62 , 74, , 698 (1958).
  • State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Otto 899 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Otto 899 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 2017
    Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62
  • State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
    -91 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the court cannot add to a statute words that were intentionally or inadvertently left out by the Legislature); Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62 , (stating that the court construes a law as a whole and interprets each section in light of the surrounding sections).
  • State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
    v. Schroedl, see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74
  • State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
    Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74
  • Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
  • Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
    Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74, (“We apply the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is to be read and construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.
  • Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
  • Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
    See, e.g., Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , (noting that “various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in the light óf each other”).
  • Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    See Swanson, d at 279 (noting that the legislature was aware of the ramifications in enacting the collateral-source statute); Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , (“[T]he legislature must be presumed to have understood the effect of its words and intended the entire statute to be effective and certain”).
  • J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
  • J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
    § 645.17 (2008); see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74 , (“We apply the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is to be read and construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.
  • Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 776 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2009
  • Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 776 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2009
    615 (1955) (“It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, rather than to emasculate an entire section, as the Government’s interpretation requires.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74 , (‘We apply the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is to be read and construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.
  • State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
  • In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
  • In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
    § 645.17(2) (2006) ("The legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain."); Mavco, d at 153 (citing Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , for the proposition that we presume that the legislature "understood the effect of its words and intended the entire statute to be effective and certain").
  • Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
  • Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
    Finally, we are required “to read a particular [clause] in context with other [clauses] of the same statute in order to determine the meaning of the particular [clause].” ILHC of Eagan, see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , (“[T]he legislature must be presumed to have understood the effect of its words and intended the entire statute to be effective and certain.”).
  • 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
    § 645.17(2); Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
  • Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    But “[t]he rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances,” Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187 , and “a statute is to be construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.” Id.; see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , (different provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other).
  • River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    16 (2004) (stating that the word “shall” means mandatory); Beaulieu, d at 702 (same); see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , (different provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other).
  • ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
  • ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
    Moreover, “the legislature must be presumed to have understood the effect of its words and intended the entire statute to be effective and certain.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74 , see also Minn.Stat.
  • Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 668 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 668 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    nce charges, and finance charges.” (quotation omitted); see also O’Brien v. Phillips Motors Excelsior, Inc., 288 Minn. 183, 185 , (stating that the “plain purpose of the provision is to inform the installment buyer of the cost of the credit extended to him”); Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 70 , , 696' (1958) (stating that part of the reason for the adoption of the MMVRISA was “to protect the purchasers of automobiles from the activities of a few individuals who had been guilty
  • Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
  • Minnesota Equal Access Network Services v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002