Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department, 691 N.W.2d 824.

58 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.D.D. and D.A.A., Parents Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.D.D. and D.A.A., Parents Minn. 2025
Because “any” is all-encompassing, we give the word broad application, “regardless of whether we consider the result reasonable.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (statute barring seat belt evidence in “any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage” barred evidence in an action 9 alleging that the seat belt was defective (cit
Minn. 2025
Because “any” is all-encompassing, we give the word broad application, “regardless of whether we consider the result reasonable.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (statute barring seat belt evidence in “any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage” barred evidence in an action 10 alleging that the seat belt was defective (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitt
City of Jackson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The supreme court has held that “[t]he word ‘any’ is given broad application in statutes.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t
Tyrone Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The word “any,” when used in a statute, “is given broad application.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep ’t, see also White Bear Lake Restoration Ass’n ex rel.
American Family Insurance Company a/s/o Nicholas Oelke v. NB Electric, Inc. dba East Side Garage Doors, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
American Family Insurance Company a/s/o Nicholas Oelke v. NB Electric, Inc. dba East Side Garage Doors, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (stating an unambiguous statute may be deemed absurd “only in rare cases [when] the plain meaning utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose” (quotation omitted)).
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
A21-0832 Minn. 2023
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t
Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
We have previously 20 explained that “[t]he word ‘any’ is given broad application in st atutes, regardless of whether we consider the result reasonable.”
Alan Lee Cimbura, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dept ., n.4 (Minn. 2005) (discussing MSI).
William A. McClendon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellant relies on Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t , -27 (Minn. 2005), to argue that the state can be liable under section 347.22.
Minn. 2019
The majority admits as much when it explains that Staab “consider[ed] whether a statute abrogate[ed] the common law before determining that it D-3 Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (explaining that we can “disregard a statute’s plain meaning only in rare cases where the plain meaning utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (“[L]anguage which is plain and una
The Echo Newspaper, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't , , 826 (Minn. 2005).
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
2; (stating that “[t]he word ‘any' is given broad application in statutes”).
Minn. 2017
2 ; see Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dept ., (stating that “[t]he word ‘any’ is given broad application in statutes”).
Ashland Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 899 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 2017
Ashland Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 899 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 2017
We have previously held that the word “any” is “given broad application.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, see In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brit-tain, (“[W]hen used in the affirmative, the word ‘any* means ‘every.’ or ‘all.’ ” (citation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
See Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (indicating that a statute is absurd “only in rare cases where the plain meaning ‘utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose’ ” (quoting Mutual Serv.
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, The statutes at issue here are the motor vehicle exemption, section 550.37, subdivision 12a, and the DWI forfeiture statute, section 169A.63.
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
Barrientos is correct that when two provisions of a law are in irreconcilable conflict with one another, “the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (quoting Minn.Stat.
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The word ‘any’ is given broad application in statutes, regardless of whether we consider the result reasonable.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, 828 (Minn.2005) (interpreting “any person” in context of Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (2004) to include municipal owners of police dogs); see also In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, (interpreting “any act of duty” in Minn.Stat.
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (applying the plain language of a statute of repose even though it would necessarily foreclose some claims); Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, -28 (Minn.2005) (refusing to conclude that the dog bite statute was inapplicable to police dogs even though the police may use reasonable force).
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
at 442 (citing Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ); see also Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, -28 (Minn.2005); Mut.
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that appellate courts can disregard the plain meaning of a statute “only in rare cases where the plain meaning utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose.” (quotation omitted)).
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
§ 645.16; see also Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (stating that the presumption that the legislature did not intend an absurd result cannot generally be used to override the plain language of a statute); Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, -28 (Minn.2005) (“We concluded that we could disregard a statute’s plain meaning only in rare cases where the plain meaning utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The supreme court has held that a statute may be deemed absurd “only in rare cases where the plain meaning ‘utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose.’ ” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (quoting Mutual Serv.
State v. White 759 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 736 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2007
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 736 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2007
We have recognized and applied the broad effect of the words “any person.” See Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (“The word ‘any’ is given broad application in statutes, regardless of whether we consider the result reasonable.”); Group Health Plan, -9 (Minn.2001) (stating that “any person” is plain and unambiguous); Philip Morris Inc., d at 496 (applying the pl
City of Wyoming v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 735 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Wyoming v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 735 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by