Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Harris v. County of Hennepin, 679 N.W.2d 728.

31 citing documents.

State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Riggs , d at 683 n.4 ; see also State v. Scovel , , 556-57 (Minn. 2018) ; Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. , , 870 (Minn. 2006) ; Harris v. County of Hennepin , , 732 (Minn. 2004).
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
CLino LLC v. City of Lino Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CLino LLC v. City of Lino Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Hennepin, (citation omitted).
Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Star Tribune Media Co. 849 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Star Tribune Media Co. 849 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Hennepin, (when words of statute are not explicit, we may look to other statutes upon the same, or similar subjects); (stating that “[t]he doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject mat
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 837 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2013
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 837 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
of Hennepin, (quoting Current Tech.
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Erdman v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC. 788 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 2010
Erdman v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC. 788 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 2010
With regard to interpreting the MFLSA specifically, we have said that when the words of the MFLSA are not explicit, we will read the MFLSA as a whole with the PWA, a related act that “ ‘address[es] the same subject.’ ” Milner, d at 617 ().
Al Franken v. Pawlenty 762 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2009
Al Franken v. Pawlenty 762 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2009
§ 645.16(5) (2008) (the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other things, “other laws upon the same or similar subjects”); (statutes should be read as a whole with other statutes that address the same subject).
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A well-known canon of statutory construction states that “the expression of one thing indicates the exclusion of another.”
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
(“The doctrine of in pan materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 748 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2008
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 748 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2008
“Statutes should be read as a whole with other statutes that address the same subject.” see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (5) (2006) (stating that when the words of a statute are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other matters, “other laws upon the same or similar subjects”).
BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n 713 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n 713 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The district court invoked the doctrine of “expressio unius est exclusio al-teráis” or “the expression of one thing indicates the exclusion of another.” see also Minn.Stat.
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 698 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2005
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 698 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2005