Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Martinco v. Hastings, 122 N.W.2d 631.

104 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
will not add words that the legislature did not draft into a statute: ‘Courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.’” Collins, d at 701-02 ().
City of Oakdale, Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Brian Michael Steidl, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. Const. art. III, § 1.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We therefore will not add words that the legislature did not draft into a statute: “[ C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislat ure purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”
Mark Weber, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Any change to a statute’s language “must come from the legislature.”
Daley Farm of Lewiston, L.L.P., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Any change to a statute’s language “must come from the legislature.”
Jeremy McNitt, Relator v. Minnesota IT Services (MNIT) Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jeremy McNitt, Relator v. Minnesota IT Services (MNIT) Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Id.; (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Frank Joseph Peach, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
It is equally true that this court “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Michael M Whalen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
A19-0355 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Any change to a statute’s language “must come from the legislature.” Martinco v. Hastings , 38 (Minn. 1963).
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Martinco v. Hastings , 265 Minn. 490 , , 638 (1963).
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We reject the first assumption necessary to accept the state’s construction because we “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497
Robert Edward Dornbusch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 860 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Followed Robert Edward Dornbusch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 860 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497, (“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497, (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Re: Declaring a Negative Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Living Word Bible Camp Project. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Re: Declaring a Negative Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Living Word Bible Camp Project. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497, (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating that “[i]f there is to be a change in [a] statute, it must come from the legislature” and not the courts).
Lakes Area Business Ass'n v. City of Forest Lake 842 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lakes Area Business Ass'n v. City of Forest Lake 842 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that, where express authority is given in one statute and not in another, the legislature shows it “knows how to grant such authority if it desires”); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(declining to adopt interpretation of statute amounting to revision because “[t]he prerogative of amending a statute in such a fashion belongs to the legislature, not to this *172 court”); Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (reiterating that courts may not write into a statute what legislature did not); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , , 638 (1963) (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legis
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497
Asian Women United of Minnesota v. Leiendecker 789 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Asian Women United of Minnesota v. Leiendecker 789 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Courts are bound by the statutes as written and may not supply by construction “that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(declining to adopt interpretation of statute that would amount to revision because “[t]he prerogative of amending a statute in such a fashion belongs to the legislature, not to this court”); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
T.E.S. Construction, Inc. v. Chicilo 784 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
T.E.S. Construction, Inc. v. Chicilo 784 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495, 497 , (stating that changes to a statute must be made by the legislature because “the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”); cf. State ex rel.
In Re Rollins 738 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Rollins 738 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, e.g., Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating that “[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks”); (stating that “the task of ex
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating that a change in a statute must come from the legislature).
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson 726 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson 726 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (holding that a change in the statutes must come from the legislature).
Rowe v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 704 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2005