Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N, 778 N.W.2d 294.

141 citing documents.

S.F. v. Clay County Minn. Ct. App. 2014
S.F. v. Clay County Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A13-2176), GEICO Insurance Company, (A14-0167) v. Metropolitan Council, Lashandra Scott, (A13-2176), Adelfa … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Council 854 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Council 854 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A13-2176), GEICO Insurance Company, (A14-0167) v. Metropolitan Council, Lashandra Scott, (A13-2176), Adelfa … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Ramsey County, Y. T. v. Guardian ad Litem, X. L., C. L., Ramsey County, M. Q. Y. v. … 853 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ramsey County, Y. T. v. Guardian ad Litem, X. L., C. L., Ramsey County, M. Q. Y. v. … 853 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, we interpret the statute’s text according to its plain language.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In interpreting statutes, our goal is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (quotation omitted).
Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. 846 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. 846 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (quotation and citations omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012) (“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.”).
In re the Estate of Pawlik 845 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Estate of Pawlik 845 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If a statute is ambiguous, we apply other canons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (citation omitted).
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
HNA Properties v. Moore 848 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The goal of this court when interpreting statutes “is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (quotation omitted).
HNA Properties v. Moore 848 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“If the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, we interpret the statute’s text according to its plain language.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
In re the Guardianship of Tschumy 834 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Guardianship of Tschumy 834 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“If the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, we interpret the statute’s text according to its plain language.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Wiley v. Robert Half International, Inc. 834 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wiley v. Robert Half International, Inc. 834 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp. 833 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp. 833 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
If a statute is ambiguous, we apply other canons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (quotation and citations omitted).
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 830 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 830 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Brua v. Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul 831 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul 831 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
If a statute is ambiguous, we apply other canons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (citation omitted).
Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. 827 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. 827 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
If a statute is ambiguous, [appellate courts] apply other canons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (citation omitted).
O'Brien v. Dombeck 823 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
O'Brien v. Dombeck 823 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, Am.
In re Guardianship of Pates 823 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Wiley v. Dolphin Staffing-Dolphin Clerical Group 825 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Guardianship of Pates 823 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
If statutory language is unambiguous, this court “interpret[s] the statute’s text according to its plain language.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Wiley v. Dolphin Staffing-Dolphin Clerical Group 825 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
If a statute is ambiguous, we apply other canons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (citations omitted).
Schupp v. United Fire & Casualty Co. 821 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Schupp v. United Fire & Casualty Co. 821 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
If statutory language is unambiguous, we “interpret the statute’s text according to its plain language.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
*624 Appellants’ Claim for Uninsured Motorist Benefits “Appellate courts review district court interpretations of insurance contracts and statutes de novo.” Brua v. Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass’n
First National Bank v. Profit Pork, LLC 820 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
First National Bank v. Profit Pork, LLC 820 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
If the language is ambiguous, we then “apply other canons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano 813 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano 813 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
If a statute is ambiguous, we apply other cannons of construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, (quotation and citations omitted).