Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.6 (Minn. 2007) (addressing a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal, “[b]ecause a statute’s constitutionality is a purely legal issue”).
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
C. Having concluded that the 30-day time limit in section 256.045, subdivision 7, is a waivable limitations period, we need to consider whether the County waived Rued’s 6 In coming to the opposite conclusion
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
two property owners appealed condemnation awards to the district court.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , Woodhall v. State , , 362 (Minn. 2007) (noting that "a limiting clause or phrase should ordinarily [be] read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows" (citation omitted)).
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
363 n.6 (Minn. 2007) (noting that the parties had not raised a constitutional claim before the district court or the court of appeals, and in general, this court does “not consider issues not raised to the courts below”); (“[WJaiver ...
Mark Randall v. Healtheast/St. John�s Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark Randall v. Healtheast/St. John�s Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ass’n, (deciding an issue on appeal where it was a novel issue of first impression, statute-based theory, and undisputed facts); n.6 (Minn. 2007) (addressing the constitutionality of a statute questioned for the first time in the supreme court “[b]ecause a statute’s constitutionality is a purely legal issue and because the state briefed the issue, we do not prejudice the state by considering the constitutionality of [the statute]”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Frederick Smart Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Frederick Smart Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.6 (Minn. 2007) (stating that the state would not be prejudiced by addressing the constitutionality of a statute because the state briefed the issue).
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.6 (Minn. 2007) (addressing the constitutionality of a statute questioned for the first time in the supreme court, in part because “the state briefed the issue, [and] we do not prejudice the state by considering the constitutionality of [the statute]”).
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.6 (Minn. 2007) (determining that the state was not prejudiced by consideration of the constitutionality of a statute when the court was presented with a purely legal issue and the state had briefed the issue).
In re the Estate of Pawlik 845 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Estate of Pawlik 845 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-62 (Minn.2007) (citing Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S.Ct.
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
v. Anda, , 363 n. 6 (Minn.2007); Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., Inc., Oanes, d at 403 , 407 n. 4; State ex rel.
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
376 , 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003); -62 (Minn.2007) (construing statutory language by using the rule of the last antecedent as a "rule of grammar" in conjunction with the "clear language of the statute").
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
See Larson, d at 705 ; -62 (Minn.2007) (citing Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S.Ct.
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
Followed State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
(citing Oanes v. Allstate Ins.
Larson v. State 790 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
Larson v. State 790 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
-62 (Minn.2007) (citing Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S.Ct.
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
When construing a statute, “[w]ords and phrases should be construed according to the rules of grammar.”
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that the doctrine of stare decisis generally requires courts to “adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law”).
State v. Losh 755 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2008
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
249 Minn. 268, 271 , (“[i]t is elementary that the right of appeal under our condemnation proceedings is governed by statute and that, unless the conditions prescribed by statute are observed, the court acquires no jurisdiction”); (“failure to comply with the statute governing appeals from eminent domain proceedings is a jurisdictional defect”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by