Cited by

of Regents, n.2 (Minn. App. 2003) (striking 5 two affidavits included in appellant’s appendix and portions of appellant’s brief referencing affidavits which were not before district court when it issued order that was subject of appeal), aff’d

Two of our other cases more directly address the scope of section 645.27, albeit not regarding the dog-bite statute: and Nichols, d 773.

of Regents, (noting that the “conclusory approach” of a letter opinion “renders it less than persuasive”).

of Regents , (noting that “[o]pinions of the Attorney General are D-21 The consequences of each interpretation confirm this as well.

of Regents, (“Issues of constitutional interpretation are questions of law which we review de novo.”).

Second, in Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, we held that the University of Minnesota Board of Regents was a “state agency” because the statute specifically included “the University of Minnesota.”

of Regents, (declining to follow attorney general opinion); Billigmeier, d at 81-82 .

of Regents, although they “are entitled to careful consideration.”

of Regents, (constitutional interpretation); Brookfield Trade Ctr.

of Regents, , 282 n. 2 (Minn.2004) (stating that given the “myriad reasons and circumstances” for the legislature's failure to enact particular bills, we are "loath to take the leap of attributing specific legislative intent to the legislature's failure to enact particular bills”).