Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moseng, 95 N.W.2d 6.

89 citing documents.

Minn. 2022
courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” State v. Lucas , ( –12 (Minn. 1959)).
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (“Where failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression concerning the elements of the statutory standard is the vice of the enactment, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.”).
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
Co., see also State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (noting that when a question of statutory construction involves a failure of expression rather than an ambiguity of expression, we “are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature”).
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
When a question of statutory construction involves a failure of expression rather than an ambiguity of expression, "courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” Genin v.1996 Mercury Marquis, (quoting State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959)).
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(citing State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (other citations omitted)); see Minn.Stat.
State v. Stoskopf 644 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stoskopf 644 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 266
Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (“Where failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression concerning the elements of the statutory standard is the vice of the enactment, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.”).
State v. Rhode 628 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Rhode 628 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 266
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, VIN No. 2MEBP95F9CX644211, License No. MN 225 NSG 622 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2001
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, VIN No. 2MEBP95F9CX644211, License No. MN 225 NSG 622 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2001
When a question of statutory construction involves a failure of expression rather than an ambiguity of expression, “courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959).
In Re Conservatorship of Malecha 607 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re Conservatorship of Malecha 607 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. 603 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. 603 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (Minn.1959) (“[C]ourts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.”).
In Re Linehan 594 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1999
In Re Linehan 594 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1999
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (stating that statutes may not be construed so as to substitute amendment for statutory construction).
State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
Furthermore, it has long been the rule that “[wjhere failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression * * * is the vice of the enactment, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959); see also Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins.
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (courts may not supply language the legislature may have omitted or overlooked).
U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Commissioner 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
US SPRINT COMM. v. Commissioner of Rev. 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
US SPRINT COMM. v. Commissioner of Rev. 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
[9] (stating "[w]e will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks"); State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (where failure of expression, rather than ambiguity of expression, constitutes vice of statute, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction, thereby supplying legislative omissions).
U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Commissioner 578 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
See Green Giant Co: v. Commissioner of Revenue, (stating ‘‘[w]e will not supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks”); State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (where failure of expression, rather than ambiguity of expression, constitutes vice of statute, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction, thereby supplying legislative omissions).
Tracy State Bank v. Tracy-Garvin Cooperative 573 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Tracy State Bank v. Tracy-Garvin Cooperative 573 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959); see also Minn. Stat. 645.16 (1996) (stating where words of law are clear and free from ambiguity, court shall not disregard letter of law under pretext of pursuing spirit); Turna v. Commissioner of Econ.
Underwood Grain Co. v. Harthun 563 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Underwood Grain Co. v. Harthun 563 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (Minn.1959).
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State, City of Loretto v. Tofte 563 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State, City of Loretto v. Tofte 563 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 268 , the supreme court stated license restrictions must be “clear and positive by way of expression so that the licensee may understand what he can and cannot do.” The court further stated: There is a well-known principle of statutory construction, * * * that purely statutory offenses cannot
Newmech Companies v. Independent School District No. 206 540 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1995
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959) (holding “[w]here failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression concerning the elements of the statutory standard is the vice of the enactment, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.”); see also Stat
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
*493 State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , -12 (1959).
Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue 505 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1993
State v. Clausen 493 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1992
State v. Clausen 493 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1992
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 268
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 481 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 481 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 268
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269 , (remedial statutes are to be liberally construed).