Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Maltreatment & Disqualification of Kleven, 736 N.W.2d 707.

34 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Blake S. Uddin. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Erin G. Aasen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 707, 709 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that when the language of a statute is ambiguous, the intent of the legislature controls).
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”
Garlyn, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 814 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Garlyn, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 814 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” (Minn.App.
In re the Rental Dwelling License held by Khan 804 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Rental Dwelling License held by Khan 804 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“When reviewing a [law], this court assumes that the [lawmaking body] does not intend absurd or unreasonable results.”
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”
City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power 776 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power 776 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Davies v. W. Publ’g Co., review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”
Vee v. Ibrahim 769 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Vee v. Ibrahim 769 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Losen v. Allina Health System 767 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Losen v. Allina Health System 767 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Rose v. Rose 765 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Rose v. Rose 765 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(citing Brookfield Trade Ctr.
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
“Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” (citing Brookfield Trade Ctr., ).
A & L POTATO CO. v. Aggregate Industries 759 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A & L POTATO CO. v. Aggregate Industries 759 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” (citing Brookfield Trade Ctr., ).
Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui 749 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions; no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotation omitted)).
Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui 749 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Although this court retains the authority to review de novo administrative interpretations of statutes, an agency’s interpretation of a statute that it administers is *70 entitled to deference.”
Westby v. Commissioner of Public Safety 742 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Westby v. Commissioner of Public Safety 742 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
This court must interpret a statute, “whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions; ‘no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ” (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by