Cited by

ion, Random House Webster’ s Unabridged Dictionary, 620 (2d ed., 2001) (defining “edition” as “one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.”); Edition, Black’ s Law Dictionary 650 (12th ed. 2024) (“[a] specific form or version of a published text”); see also Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010) (recognizing that it can be useful and appropriate to consult Black’s Law Dictionary wh

e should view the cost of the care and services from the recipient’s or the MCO’s perspective rather than DHS’s. See Schmalz, d at 50 (stating that in interpreting statutes, we “ ‘consider not only 15 the bare meaning of the word or phrase, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” (quoting Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., )).

16 Buy, Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2010).

See Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2010) (“We see no discrepancy between noting that statutory language may at first glance have more than one meaning, and later drawing the conclusion that the language has one clear meaning after analyzing the various potential interpretations.”).

Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022); Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (“In reading the statute, it is necessary to consider not only the bare meaning of the word or phrase, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” (quotation omitted)); (explaining that when statutory language is silent

In doing so, we “consider not only the bare meaning of the word or phrase but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (quotation omitted).

Courts may consider dictionary definitions when determining a word or phrase’s plain and ordinary meaning, id., including Black’s Law Dictionary, Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010).

3 In interpreting a federal statute, appellate courts must “give effect to the will of Congress.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. , (quotation omitted).

“In reading the statute, it is necessary to consider not only t he bare meaning of the word or phrase, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. , ( quotations omitted).

When interpreting a federal statute, this court must “give effect to the will of Congress.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic 4 In connection with this guidance, we note that DEED submitted a question to the USDOL regarding the high -school eligibility issue, but did not receive a direct response and the USDOL did not select that specific questio

“In reading the statute, it is necessary to consider not only the bare meaning of the word or phrase, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) .

“We must presume that [the] 14 legislature says in a statute what it means a nd means in a statute what it says there.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (quotation omitted).

When considering a federal statute, “our task is to give effect to the will of Congress.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. , (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 570 (1982)).

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. , (citing Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339, 99 S. Ct. 2326, 2331 (1979)).

Co., see Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. , n.2 (Minn. 2010) (recognizing usefulness and appropriateness of consulting Black’s Law Dictionary when conducting plain -language reading of a statute).

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010).

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (“In reading the statute, it is necessary to consider not only the bare meaning of the word or phrase, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” (quotation omitted)).

[appellate courts] consider the common dictionary definition of the word or phrase.” see Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010) (“The United States Supreme Court has recognized the usefulness and appropriateness in consulting Black’s Law Dictionary when conducting a plain-language reading of a statute, as have we.”).

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.

The application of subdivision 7 turns on the scope of “exempt.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 653 (9th ed.2009), defines “exempt” as “[f]ree or released from a duty or liability to which others are held.” See Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n. 2 (Minn.2010) (approving the use of Black’s Law Dictionary when conducting a plain-meaning reading of a statute).

An appellate court, when interpreting a statute, must apply its unambiguous plain meaning, and, in doing so, may consider “dictionary definitions,” and “Black’s Law Dictionary,” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., , 759 n. 2 (Minn.2010) ( (using Black’s Law Dictionary to determine the meaning of “product”)).

When interpreting a statute, courts must consider its “placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (quotation omitted).

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., , 759 n. 3 (Minn.2010).

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.