Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carufel, 783 N.W.2d 539.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Thomas Herrera Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Thomas Herrera Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Langteau, 1 but this court has persuasively observed that, “in recent decades, the supreme court consistently has applied a form of review that is more deferential to the fact-finder’s evaluation of the evidence.” WL 2312506, at *3 (Minn. App. May 11, 2020) (), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (“We cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.”); (stating that “court[s] cannot add words to a statute not supplied by the legislature”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2024
6, meaning 8 Although we respond to the dissent’s hypothetical, we have previously observed that there is nothing inappropriate about limiting our holding “to the actual facts presented and not a hypothetical illustration that is materially different.” n.3 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Nicole Rae Cloud v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Nicole Rae Cloud v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating, appellate “court[s] cannot add words to a statute not supplied by the legislature”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(rejecting an interpretation of statutory language that would require adding words).
Minn. 2021
(stating that we “cannot add words to a statute not supplied by the legislature.”) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the tax court.6 Affirmed.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
(“[C]ourt[s] cannot add words to a statute not supplied by the legislature.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., State v. Bauer , -27 (Minn. 2011) (multip le controlled buys through informants at staged storefront); ( three controlled sales to informant); 434 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d on other grounds , ( sale of crack cocaine to confidential reliable informant on three occasions by defendant who was gang member).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 418; review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jesse James Adams. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We first determine “whether the statute’s language on its face is clear and unambiguous.”
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
According to LaPenotiere, this result is compelled by our decision in State v. Carufel
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lapenotiere v. State 902 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lapenotiere v. State 902 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
He contrasts his case with State v. Carufel, where the defendant was convicted of second-degree controlled-substance crime based on selling drugs in a “park zone.” -42 (Minn. 2010).
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
Donald R. Wells, class representative on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Holiday Companies, Inc. 862 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Donald R. Wells, class representative on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Holiday Companies, Inc. 862 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
(“[T]he court cannot add words to a statute not supplied by the legislature”).
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership 827 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2013
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
However, when a criminal statute is ambiguous, the rule of lenity does not require “the narrowest possible interpretation to the statute.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ndikum 802 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Ndikum 802 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
*778 (Minn.2010); review denied (Minn. Sept.
Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011