Cited by

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

101 citing documents.

Means v. BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Means v. BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. 646 N.W.2d 911 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
“[V]arious provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge 637 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge 637 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
s; limiting incidental charges in connection with such instruments and fixing maximum charges for delinquencies, extensions and time sale differentials; authorizing investigations and examinations of persons engaged in the business of making or financing such sales; prescribing penalties for violations, and providing for enforcement of compliance by injunction.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 70-71 , -97 (1958) (emphasis added).
In Re Condemnation by the City of Minneapolis of Certain Lands 632 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2001
In Re Condemnation by the City of Minneapolis of Certain Lands 632 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2001
When the legislature meant to refer to amounts deposited in court, it did so explicitly using the term “amounts deposited” rather than “damages.” Provisions in a statute must be interpreted in light of each other, and “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, 73-74
Hince v. O'KEEFE 632 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2001
Hince v. O'KEEFE 632 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2001
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 632 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 2001
Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 632 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 2001
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 616 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 2000
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 616 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 2000
See Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74 , see also Erickson *278 v. Sunset Mem’l Park Ass’n, 259 Minn. 532, 543
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
See Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
In Re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34 615 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2000
In Re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34 615 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2000
See, e.g., Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74 , ("a statute is to be read and construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts”); Kachman , 251 Minn, at 230, d at 692 ("a particular provision of a statute cannot be read out of context but must be taken together with other related provisions to deter
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 611 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2000
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 611 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2000
the MMVRISA was enacted by the legislature in 1957 we held that the act “indieate[s] a legislative policy to bring both regulatory control and uniformity into the field of automobile financing” and an intent “to protect the purchasers of automobiles from the activities of a few individuals] who had been guilty of inequitable practices in particular situations.” Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 70-71 , -97 (1958).
Flaherty v. Independent School District No. 2144 577 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Flaherty v. Independent School District No. 2144 577 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
5 See Van Asp eren v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-4 , (stating that separate provisions of a statute must be interpreted in light of one another).
Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 567 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 567 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
Kalberg v. Park & Recreation Board of Minneapolis 563 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kalberg v. Park & Recreation Board of Minneapolis 563 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
Anderson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 541 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Anderson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 541 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74
In Re Estate of Fauskee 497 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Estate of Fauskee 497 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 69
Allison v. Sherburne Country Mobile Home Park 475 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Allison v. Sherburne Country Mobile Home Park 475 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74
Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 464 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 464 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schooler v. United States, 231 F.2d 560, 563 (8th Cir.1956); see also Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74 , (statute must be as a whole so as to harmonize all of its parts).
In re the Miltona State Bank 414 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re the Miltona State Bank 414 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 73-74 , (in determining legislative intent^ court is to read the statute as a whole and to interpret various provisions of the same statute in light of each other); (Minnesota Supreme Court follows a policy of harmonizi
Washington Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Stillwater v. Baker 374 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Washington Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Stillwater v. Baker 374 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 69
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 352 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1984
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 352 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1984
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 69
Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 254 Minn. 62 , In re Bibbey, 9 F. 2d 944 (D. Minn. 1925).
O'BRIEN v. Phillips Motors Excelsior, Inc. 179 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1970
O'BRIEN v. Phillips Motors Excelsior, Inc. 179 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1970
The title of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (L. 1957, c. 266), 1 as we observed in Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 254 Minn. 62, 70, 71 , 93 N. W. (2d) 690, 696, 697 , reflects a legislative policy “to bring both regulatory control and conformity into the field of automobile financing” and “to protect the purchasers of automobiles from the activities of a few individuals who had been guilty of inequitable practices in particular situations.” W
Ruona v. Freeway Dodge, Inc. 171 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1969
Ruona v. Freeway Dodge, Inc. 171 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1969
Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 254 Minn. 62 , 93 N. W. (2d) 690 .
Schauman v. Solmica Midwest, Inc. 168 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1969
Schauman v. Solmica Midwest, Inc. 168 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1969
1 Minnesota cases cited in Annotation, 14 A. L. R. (3d) 1065, 1079, as following the above rule are Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp. supra; Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz, 209 Minn. 278 , ; Seebold v. Eustermann, 216 Minn. 566 , 13 N. W. (2d) 739 , 152 A. L. R. 585; Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. 254 Minn. 62 , 93 N. W. (2d) 690 .
Melbo v. Rinn 157 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1968