Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536.

101 citing documents.

Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes 823 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 2012
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
v. Schroedl, (citation and quotation omitted); see also Hans Hagen Homes
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 818 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 818 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 2012
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 2012
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
‘Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernible from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and [Minnesota’s appellate courts] apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
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
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
“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discerna-ble from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
Williams v. National Football League 794 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Williams v. National Football League 794 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Both parties rely heavily on Hans Hagen Homes, to support their respective positions.
Opheim v. County of Norman 784 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Opheim v. County of Norman 784 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
6 (stating appeal procedure from county board’s resolution setting budget of county attorney’s office); see also Hans Hagen Homes, (noting that statutory timing provision that included a consequence for noncompliance was mandatory).
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Larson v. State 776 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Larson v. State 776 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In re the Risk Level Determination of D.W. 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Dw 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Dw 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In re the Risk Level Determination of D.W. 766 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sperle v. Orth 763 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sperle v. Orth 763 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
In Re the City of Redwood Falls 756 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the City of Redwood Falls 756 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cf ., e.g., Hans Hagen Homes, (holding that city’s failure to provide written reasons for denial of rezoning application within statutory deadline did not invalidate denial of application because statute did not specify penalty for noncompliance).
Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Board of Commissioners 756 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2008
Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Board of Commissioners 756 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2008
Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 749 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 749 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
Carlson v. DEPT. OF EMPLOY. & ECON. DEV. 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. DEPT. OF EMPLOY. & ECON. DEV. 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
Carlson v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
‘Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, see also Minn.Stat.
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Id.; see also Hans Hagen Homes, (holding that the word “shall” does not necessarily imply “that there would be specific but unexpressed consequences for noncompliance with a statute”).
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
7 See Hans Hagen Homes, (noting that a statutory timing provision that included a consequence for noncompliance was mandatory); Wenger v. Wenger, 200 Minn. 436, 440 , 274 N.W.
Minnesota-Osseo v. Independent School District 279 742 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota-Osseo v. Independent School District 279 742 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by