Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Brittain, 724 N.W.2d 512.

24 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. 2025
See In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty 16 Disability Benefits of Brittain, (stating that the Legislature’s use of the word “any” as a modifier demonstrates “the intent to be inclusive, not restrictive”).
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
We have explained that using the word “any” demonstrates an “intent to be inclusive, not restrictive.”
Minn. 2025
We have explained that using the word “any” demonstrates an “intent to be inclusive, not restrictive.”
City of White Bear Lake, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Christopher Anthony Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A statute is only ambiguous when it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” ().
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)).
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., (construing state building code); In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain
In the Matter of Xcel's Request to Issue Renewable Development Fund Cycle 4 Requests for Proposals and Petition … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Xcel's Request to Issue Renewable Development Fund Cycle 4 Requests for Proposals and Petition … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1(h), (f); (“If the statute is not ambiguous, the inquiry ends there.”) Therefore, Xcel and the MPUC did not err by considering additional factors in the RDF decision-making process.
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
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.
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, (quotation omitted).
State v. White 759 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson 753 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson 753 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In re Application for PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain
State v. Wiltgen 737 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2007
State v. Wiltgen 737 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2007
A court must give a plain reading to any statute it construes, and when the language of the statute is clear, the court must not engage in any further construction.” In re PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, (-59 (Minn.2004)).
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Hagert 730 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Hagert 730 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
1 (Supp.2005); see In re Application for PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, (holding that “any act of duty” includes all tasks and functions of an officer, not just those involving hazards or heightened risks).