Cited by

The purpose of the rule is to give the parties “one automatic right to remove a judge before that judge presides over a proceeding involving a substantive issue in the matter.”

P. 5 cmt; (noting that while the commentary to the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not bind this court, it provides guidance which courts may follow).

(explaining that “[t]he law of the case doctrine does not generally bar a higher court from reviewing an earlier decision of a lower court”), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 (2005); n.7 (Minn. 2008) (“We are not generally barred ‘from reviewing an earlier decision of a lower court’ ” by the law-of-the-case doctrine.

When “the language is plain and unambiguous, that plain language must be followed.”

When “the language is plain and unambiguous, that plain language must be followed.”

A rule is ambiguous if it is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

d 300, 303 (Minn. 2008).

The purpose of peremptory removal “is to give the parties one automatic right to remove a judge before that judge presides over a proceeding involving a substantive issue in the matter.”

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (d 300, 305-06 (Minn. 2008)).

13, 1985) ; d 300, 303-04 (Minn. 2008) (a party waives the right to challenge a decision on a peremptory- 6 We observe that the doctrine is discretionary and there ha s been at least one example in which our court reexamine d “an issue that was brought before the special term panel.” Banque Internationale Luxembourg v. Dacotah Cos

When interpreting court rules, “we look first to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.”

5 courts] look first to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.’” See State v. Lee , ().

State v. Dahlin , , 305 n.7 (Minn. 2008).

State v. Dahlin , , 308 (Minn. 2008) (emphasis added).

State v. Dahlin , , 305 (Minn. 2008).

interpreted in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations.’” d 380, 384 (Minn. App. 2017) ( (quotation omitted)).

-06 (Minn. 2008) (alteration in original) (quotations and citations omitted).

744 n.1 (Minn. 1994) (citations omitted); , 305 n.7 (Minn. 2008) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine is a rule of practice that once an issue is considered and adjudicated, that issue should not be reexamined in that court or any lower court throughout the case.” (quotation *832 omitted)); (noting that the

(reviewing de novo whether a party’s decision not to petition for review on the legal issue addressed in an earlier writ proceeding waived appellate review of that issue in a subsequent appeal).

interpreted in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations.” (quotation omitted); see Olson, d at 398 (holding that the plain language of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure must be read in context, as a whole).

-04 (Minn. 2008) (stating that “denial of a writ of prohibition by the court of appeals is subject to review by this court through petition for review.

“[A] defendant’s failure to seek a writ of prohibition constitutes a waiver of further appellate review ‘when the issue involves the right of peremptory removal.’” n.4 (Minn. 2013) (emphasis omitted) (-05 (Minn. 2008)).

After that, removal can only be for cause shown.” (discussing removal under rule 63.03).