Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spence, 768 N.W.2d 104.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(rejecting argument that “lawful possession” is synonymous with “legal ownership”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
“We interpret the words of a statute according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2020).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To show he had consent to enter the home
Minn. 2021
See, –08 (Minn. 2009) (conducting routine statutory interpretation analysis based on the district court’s supplemental jury instructions).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A person is in lawful possession if he or she has the “legal right to exercise control over the building in question.”
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
See State v. Spence , , 108 (Minn. 2009) (noting in context of statutory interpretation, that "whenever possible we avoid statutory constructions that render words superfluous").
A18-1644 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court has held that a person is in lawful possession if he or she has the “legal right to exercise control over the building in question.”
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Spence , , 108-09 (Minn. 2009).
A17-1841 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
4(a),” is defined as a “person who has a legal right to exercise control over the building in question.” State v. Spence , -09 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A “person in lawful possession” is defined as “a person who has a legal right to exercise control over the building in question.” -09 (Minn. 2009); see also Jury Instructions , 10 A Minnesota Dist.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A person in lawful possession for the purpose of the burglary statute has “the right to consent to the entry of others into that building.”
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF: J.T.L., Child 875 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF: J.T.L., Child 875 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(); see also Minn. 1 Because the district court’s order restoring respondent’s firearms rights is not challenged on appeal, it is final and unaffected by this appeal.
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The legal right to exercise control over a building necessarily includes the right to consent to the entry of others into that building.” d 104, 108-09 (Minn. 2009).
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
110 n.5 (Minn. 2009) (holding, in the context of the burglary statute, that “the plain meaning of possession [of a building] .
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
-09 (Minn. 2009) (distinguishing between ownership and possessory interests).
State of Minnesota v. Claude Riley Crockson, Jr. 854 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Claude Riley Crockson, Jr. 854 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
necessarily includes the right to consent to the entry of others into that building.”
Bank of America, N.A., as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L. P. v. Cheryl Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bank of America, N.A., as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L. P. v. Cheryl Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“An unlawful detainer action merely determines the right to present possession 3 and does not adjudicate the ultimate legal or equitable rights of ownership possessed by the parties.” (quotation omitted)); Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Jones
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
110 n. 6 (Minn.2009) (declining to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal).
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
See, -10 (Minn.2009) (affirming burglary conviction where co-owner of a single-family residence entered the house without the consent of the co-owner in possession).
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
(explaining that we avoid statutory constructions that render words superfluous).