Cited by

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

104 citing documents.

Rowe v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 704 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (reiterating that courts may not write into a statute what legislature did not); (restating the settled rule that extensions of statutory provisions are to be made by legislature, not courts); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating that changes to a statute must be made by legislature because “the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
Chenoweth v. City of New Brighton 655 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Education Minnesota-Chisholm v. Independent School District No. 695 649 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Mar-tinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , review denied (Minn. Dec.
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
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 purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”); (stating that “the task of extending existi
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating "[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature"); (stating "the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court"), review
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 626 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 626 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marlinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , (citations omitted).
American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant 621 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
D & R STAR, INC. v. World Bowling, Inc. 619 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
D & R STAR, INC. v. World Bowling, Inc. 619 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (holding that “the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495, 497 , 638 (1963) (stating “[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 “the task of ex
Christopherson v. Fillmore Township 583 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Christopherson v. Fillmore Township 583 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“[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 purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
Bunge v. Zachman 578 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bunge v. Zachman 578 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cf. Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“[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 legisla^ ture purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Petition of Anderson 565 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Petition of Anderson 565 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
County of Morrison v. Litke 558 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Morrison v. Litke 558 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.”).
Pederson v. Clarkson Lindley Trust 519 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pederson v. Clarkson Lindley Trust 519 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Id.; accord Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , (“[W]hen a statute speaks with clarity in limiting its application to specifically enumerated subjects, its application shall not be extended to other subjects by process of construction.”).
Cummins v. Klenk 474 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Cummins v. Klenk 474 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , -37 (1963).
Kulla v. McNulty 472 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Kulla v. McNulty 472 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
R.A.N., d at 73 (quoting Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , ).
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“[I]t is only in the clearest of cases that the question of negligence becomes one of law.” Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 501
Rindahl v. St. Louis County Welfare Board 437 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rindahl v. St. Louis County Welfare Board 437 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , (citations omitted).
Ackerman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Welfare of R.A.N. 435 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Welfare of R.A.N. 435 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“[W]hen a statute speaks with clarity in limiting its application to specifically enumerated subjects, its application shall not be extended to other subjects by process of construction.” Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495
Kelsey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kelsey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Duluth, 243 Minn. 84, 88-89 , (maxim not applicable if resulting construction is contrary to clear legislative intent).
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490 , 495-96 n. 2, , 637-638 n. 2 (1963) (statutes dealing with rights and duties of emergency vehicle operators must be' construed together); Rogers v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 218 Minn. 454, 458 , (“All the statutory provisions cited are part of the highway traffic regulat
Gudvangen v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 284 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1979
Hagerty v. Hagerty 281 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1979
Hagerty v. Hagerty 281 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1979
See, Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Nadasdy, 247 Minn. 159, 166, 168 , 677 (1956); cf., Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490 , (specific exemptions cannot be extended by statutory construction).
Van Tassel v. Hillerns 248 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1976
Van Tassel v. Hillerns 248 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1976
We see no reason to depart from our holding in Martinco v. *256 Hastings, 265 Minn. 490 , that the highway traffic regulations apply to authorized emergency vehicles, unless an exception ,to their provisions is expressly provided.
Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation 184 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1971
Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation 184 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1971
Cf. Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490 , 122 N. W. (2d) 631 ; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263 , 95 N. W. (2d) 6 .
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 495 , 122 N. W. (2d) 631, 637 ; 17 Dunnell, Dig.