Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. Haule, 230 N.W.2d 51.

30 citing documents.

City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power 776 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power 776 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 170
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 170
Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of Revenue 676 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2004
Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of Revenue 676 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2004
§ 645.16 (2002); see also Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 169
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1996
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1996
Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 170
Newmech Companies v. Independent School District No. 206 540 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1995
Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1995
Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1995
Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 170
Johnson v. Miera 433 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Miera 433 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
When a court is called upon to interpret a statute it is “required to discover and effectuate legislative intent, to consider objects which the legislature seeks to accomplish by the statute and the mischief sought to be remedied, and to avoid a result which would be absurd or would do violence to the language of the statute.” Peterson v. Haute, 304 Minn. 160, 170
Color-Ad Packaging, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 428 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1988
Matter of Schroeder 415 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Matter of Schroeder 415 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Haute, 304 Minn. 160, 170
Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic Security 386 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1986
Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic Security 386 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1986
Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 170 , Minn.Stat.
Olson v. City of St. James 380 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Olson v. City of St. James 380 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 169 , Stapleman v. St.
Strauss v. Waseca Village Bowl 378 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Strauss v. Waseca Village Bowl 378 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
for rev. granted (Minn. June 14, 1985); Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 174-75
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, e.g., Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 174-75
State on Behalf of Forslund v. Bronson 305 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1981
State on Behalf of Forslund v. Bronson 305 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1981
Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 170 , Minn.Stat.
Ewers v. Thunderbird Aviation, Inc. 289 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1979
Ewers v. Thunderbird Aviation, Inc. 289 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1979
645.16; Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160
Meinke v. Lewandowski 237 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
Meinke v. Lewandowski 237 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
Secondly, we note that the same wording used in Question No. 7 here was the precise cause of the jury’s confusion in Peterson v. Haule, 304 Minn. 160, 164