Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reiter v. Kiffmeyer, 721 N.W.2d 908.

54 citing documents.

Court of Appeals Bryce Holstad, et al v. Town of May Hennesy, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in … Minn. 2026
(stating that “we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently”).8 Applying this interpretation of “meaningful access” here, we conclude the Town did not fail to provide the Holstads “meaningful access.” Unlike in Kennedy, the record
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: T. L. J., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Put differently, “we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: L. A. B. and C. R. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: L. A. B. and C. R. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[W]hen a question of statutory construction involves a failure of expression rather than an ambiguity of expression, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” (quotation omitted); (“[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. V. M. and J. R. M., Parents 8 N.W.3d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. V. M. and J. R. M., Parents 8 N.W.3d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[W]hen a question of statutory construction involves a failure of expression rather than an ambiguity of expression, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.” E.M.B., d at 601 (quotation omitted); (“And 10 we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”).
Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (“We will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.” ( ) ).
N.H., and Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights-intervenor v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[Appellate courts] will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, eithe r purposely or in advertently.”
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cheryl L. Stinski v. Jim Ruedebusch, et al., Carlton County Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”
In the Matter of Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc., d/b/a Baywood Home Care Minn. 2019
.” But the bracketed words do not appear in the statute as enacted by the Legislature, and “ we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted.”
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson v. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity as … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.” Reiter v. Kiffmeyer
Jason Rhoades v. Tony Lourey, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”).
In re the Matter of Dahlgren Township, City of Carver and the Commissioner of the Office of Administrative … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
(“[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”).
Moulton v. Simon 883 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2016
Moulton v. Simon 883 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels, et al 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels, et al 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But courts “will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
We “will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
("[Wle will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.").
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
We find no merit in Grigsby’s assertion that rule 18.07 deprives the district court of jurisdiction over other charges arising out of the same conduct when the legislature provided for certification of the “proceeding,” rather than “offenses specified in the certification order.” (stating that “we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted”).
Dahlin v. Kroening 796 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 2011
Dahlin v. Kroening 796 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 2011
(stating that “we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted”).
Larson v. State 790 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
Larson v. State 790 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
Independent School District No. 12 v. Minnesota Department of Education 788 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2010
Independent School District No. 12 v. Minnesota Department of Education 788 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2010
Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that courts “will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently”).
Kennedy v. Pepin Township of Wabasha County 784 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2010
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
In Re Northern States Power Co. 775 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Northern States Power Co. 775 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that courts “will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently”).
Russell's Americinn, LLC v. Eagle General Contractors, LLC 772 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Russell's Americinn, LLC v. Eagle General Contractors, LLC 772 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(“[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”).
Look Ex Rel. Dehen v. Pact Charter School 763 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Look Ex Rel. Dehen v. Pact Charter School 763 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating only when a statute is ambiguous should courts use other canons of construction or extrinsic evidence to discern the legislature’s intent).
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 755 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2008
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 755 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2008
See, (stating that “we not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently”).
Beardsley v. Garcia 753 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 2008
Beardsley v. Garcia 753 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 2008
We have stated that “we will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”