Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hartmann, 700 N.W.2d 449.

30 citing documents.

In re: Application for an Order for Inspection of David Berglund and Lake View Natural Dairy, 140 County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re: Application for an Order for Inspection of David Berglund and Lake View Natural Dairy, 140 County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he protection provided by article XIII, section 7, against licensing requirements does not exempt farmers from substantive regulation related to the production or sale of their farm products.”
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. SerShawn Copone Nicholson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. SerShawn Copone Nicholson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-54 (Minn. 2005) (consulting three dictionaries to determine whether a contested term had a well-defined and clear meaning).
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court, when interpreting a statute, must apply its unambiguous plain meaning, and, in doing so, may consider “dictionary definitions,” and “Black’s Law Dictionary,” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., , 759 n. 2 (Minn.2010) ( (using Black’s Law Dictionary to determine the meaning of “product”)).
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
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
§ 645.08(1) (requiring words to be con *382 strued according to their common and approved usage); -54 (Minn.2005) (applying dictionary definitions).
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
“We will not ‘substitute for words used in the constitution having a well-defined meaning other words having a different meaning.’ ” (quoting State v. Pett, 253 Minn. 429, 432 , ).
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. 777 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2010
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. 777 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2010
638 , 166 L.Ed.2d 494 (2006) (using Black’s Law Dictionary to determine the meaning of "action,” "complaint,” and "damages”); (using Black’s Law Dictionary to determine the meaning of "product”).
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
*903 -54 (Minn.2005) (relying on dictionary definitions for guidance in defining constitutional provisions).
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-54 (Minn.2005) (applying dictionary definitions).