Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christensen v. State, Department of Conservation, Game & Fish, 175 N.W.2d 433.

31 citing documents.

City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership 827 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2013
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
See generally Christensen v. Dep't of Conservation, Game & Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500 , (construing statutory language in context of act that contains it).
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 818 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 818 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (considering several sections of an ordinance in defining term at issue); Christensen v. State, Dep’t of Conservation, Game & Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500 , (considering act as a whole and relevant statutory provisions in construing statute at issue).
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (Chanhassen); Christensen v. State, Dep’t of Conservation, Game & Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500
State v. Holmes 787 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Holmes 787 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Christensen v. Dep’t of Conservation, Game & Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500
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
Christensen v. Dep’t of Conservation, Game & Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500 , (observing that statute must be read as whole and that meaning should be ascertained from context).
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 668 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 668 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Louis Park v. King, 246 Minn. 422, 428-29 , (noting that the court should consider the meaning of words and phrases “by inquiring into the sense of their employment in the connection in which they are used”); Christensen v. Dept. of Conservation, Game, and Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500 , (observing that statutes must be construed as a whole and that meaning should be ascertained from context).
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Christensen v. Dep’t of Conservation, Game, and Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500 , .
Heaslip v. Freeman 511 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Heaslip v. Freeman 511 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Christensen v. Department of Conservation, Game and Fish, 285 Minn. 493, 499-500 , (stating the longstanding proposition that statutes must be construed as a whole and that meaning should be ascertained from context).
Illg v. Forum Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1989
Illg v. Forum Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1989
See, e.g., Christensen v. State Dep’t of Conservation, G. & F., 285 Minn. 493, 497
General Casualty Companies v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 413 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
General Casualty Companies v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 413 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Respondents cite Christensen v. State, 285 Minn. 493, 497 , : [E]ach case presenting the problem what “compensation” means in a particular fact setting must take into consideration the statute or statutes in question as well as the rule of interpretation relating to the intent of the legislature.
Hauglid v. Sandberg Erection Co. 379 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1986
Hauglid v. Sandberg Erection Co. 379 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1986
Christensen v. State, Department of Conservation, 285 Minn. 493
Welton v. Pioneer Telephone Co. 295 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1980
Welton v. Pioneer Telephone Co. 295 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1980
Cf. Christensen v. State, Dept. of Conservation, 285 Minn. 493
Lemke v. Knudsen Trucking, Inc. 291 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1980
Lemke v. Knudsen Trucking, Inc. 291 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1980
Christensen v. State, Department of Conservation, Game and Fish, 285 Minn. 493
Nordman v. Goldfines 270 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1978
Nordman v. Goldfines 270 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1978
compensation be concurrent with, but “separate, distinct and in addition to payment for any other compensation,” and that “no credit shall be taken for payment of permanent partial disability against liability for permanent total disability.” In construing provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, each is viewed as supplementary to the others, Christensen v. State, Department of Conservation, 285 Minn. 493 , and the act is given a liberal construction.
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Coin Wholesalers, Inc. 250 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1976
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Coin Wholesalers, Inc. 250 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1976
& Steamship Clerks, Etc. v. State, 303 Minn. 178 , Christensen v. State, Dept. of Conservation, 285 Minn. 493