Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412.

139 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
of Dakota, provides some clarification.
Schuette v. City of Hutchinson 843 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2014
Schuette v. City of Hutchinson 843 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2014
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Nelson 823 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Nelson 823 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See ILHC of Eagan, LLC v. Cnty, of Dakota
First National Bank v. Profit Pork, LLC 820 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
First National Bank v. Profit Pork, LLC 820 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
78th Street OwnerCo, LLC v. County of Hennepin 813 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2012
78th Street OwnerCo, LLC v. County of Hennepin 813 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
of Dakota, (internal quotation marks omitted)).
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
of Dakota, (noting that statutory construction is unnecessary “[w]hen a statute’s meaning is plain from its language as applied to the facts of the particular case”).
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 799 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 799 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Midland Credit Management v. Chatman 796 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Midland Credit Management v. Chatman 796 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
§ 645.08 (2010); ILHC of Eagan
Crossroads Church of Prior Lake v. County of Dakota 800 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2011
Followed Crossroads Church of Prior Lake v. County of Dakota 800 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2011
of Dakota, (quoting Chateau Cmty.
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Williams v. National Football League 794 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Williams v. National Football League 794 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
of Dakota, (stating that “the legislature must be presumed to have understood the effect of its words) (quotation omitted).
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Under the basic canons of statutory construction, we are to construe words and phrases according to rules of grammar and according to their most natural and obvious usage ...” ILHC of Eagan
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 782 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2010
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 782 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2010
Because we read particular statutory provisions “in context with other provisions of the same statute in order to determine the meaning of the particular provision,” ILHC of Eagan, the express references in subdivision 3(c) to both “public defender” and “other counsel at public expense” demonstrate legislative acknowledgment that for some parties in juvenile protection proceedings, a public defender would be appointed and, for other parties, “other counsel” would be appointed.
In Re Enlargement of the Valley Branch Watershed District 781 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Enlargement of the Valley Branch Watershed District 781 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
ILHC of Eagan, (“The touchstone for statutory interpretation is the plain meaning of a statute’s language.”); see also Minn.Stat.
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
We “construe words and phrases according to rules of grammar and according to their most natural and obvious usage unless it would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.” ILHC of Eagan, (citing Minn.Stat.
Imperial Developers, Inc. v. Calhoun Development, LLC 775 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Imperial Developers, Inc. v. Calhoun Development, LLC 775 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Under the basic canons of statutory construction, we are to construe words and phrases according to rules of grammar and according to their most natural and obvious usage.” ILHC of Eagan
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See ILHC of Eagan, (requiring phrases in statute to be read in context with other phrases).
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township 770 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township 770 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Under the basic canons of statutory construction, we are to construe words and phrases according to rules of grammar and according to their most natural and obvious usage unless it would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.” ILHC of Eagan
Bahr v. Capella University 765 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bahr v. Capella University 765 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Respondent contends that unless a plaintiff pleads actual discrimination by an employer, a reprisal claim is “wholly unfounded.” “When a statute’s meaning is plain from its language as applied to the facts of the particular case, a judicial construction is not necessary.” ILHC of Eagan
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 758 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2008