Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 776 N.W.2d 431.

82 citing documents.

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”).
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
C/D-7 the statute that the legislature did not include); Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, d 431, 438 (Minn. 2009) (refusing to rewrite statute).
In the Matter of: Ellen Sue Laas Ewald v. Nina Laas Ewald Nedrebo, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Ellen Sue Laas Ewald v. Nina Laas Ewald Nedrebo, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court will not “rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
Lucas Paul Gilbertson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding that the innocent owner defense was not separately applicable to each joint owner of a vehicle).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Laase v. 2007 7 Chevrolet Tahoe
Dennis Sershen, Minn. 2022
See Minn. Stat. § 645.16(7); Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, n.2 (Minn. 2009) (“In the absence of a finding of ambiguity, we do not resort to legislative history to interpret a statute.”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
Followed Minn. 2021
206, 212 (Minn. 2014); Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (stating that when the text of a statute is clear “[w]e cannot rewrite a stat ute under the guise of statutory interpretation”).
Gary Allen Jensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, -36 (Minn. 2009).
A18-1655 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (“We cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.”).
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , , 438 (Minn. 2009) ("We cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.").
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , , 435 (Minn. 2009).
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 931 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2019
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 931 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2019
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , , 438 (Minn. 2009) ("We cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.").
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (“ We cannot rewrite a statute 14 under the guise of statutory interpretation.”).
State v. Rogers 925 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
State v. Rogers 925 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
E.g. , Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , , 438 (Minn. 2009) ("We cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.").
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , , 433 (Minn. 2009).
Helen Marie Mauch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 439 (Minn. 2009).
Verhein v. Piper 917 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Riggs , d at 682 n.3 ; see State v. Nelson , , 445 (Minn. 2014) (Dietzen, J., dissenting) ("We use the 'canons of interpretation' set forth in section 645.08 to determine the threshold issue of whether the statutory language is unambiguous."); Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , , 435 (Minn. 2009) ("We have utilized the 'canons of interpretation' set forth in Minn. Stat. § 645.08 in determining the plain meaning of a statute without first concluding that the statute was ambiguous.").
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
In re: Guardianship of Laye Komara, minor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe , -40 (Minn. 2009) (declining to interpret unambiguous forfeiture statute to favor private property rights, stating that “it is the role of the legislature, not the courts, to rewrite the statute to provide greater protection for private property” and that “[t]he public policy arguments .
Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, MN License No.: 168KSE, VIN: 2GKFLZE3XD6336507 892 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, MN License No.: 168KSE, VIN: 2GKFLZE3XD6336507 892 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (recognizing that “punitive statutes, like the [impaired-driver] vehicle forfeiture statute, are to be construed strictly in favor of the challenging party”); Riley, d at 443 ; Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Accepting the watershed district’s construction therefore would require six alterations to the statute’s text, but we may not “rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, d 431, 438 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
Robert Burks, Respondent/Cross-appellant v. Metropolitan Council, Appellant/Cross-respondent. 884 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2016
Robert Burks, Respondent/Cross-appellant v. Metropolitan Council, Appellant/Cross-respondent. 884 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2016
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, -36 (Minn. 2009) (applying the canon that “the singular includes the plural; and the plural, the singular”).
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, d 431, 435 n.2 (Minn. 2009); Arcadia Dev.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
§ 609.2231 may be sound, we "cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (citing Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, (stating that the court may not add words to a statute)).
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Jones v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the legislature did not make an express reference to the sentencing date, and “[appellate courts] cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
James Jones v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, it is not the role of the judiciary to consider or answer 8 hypothetical policy questions; those arguments “should be advanced to the legislature, the body that crafted the language that compels the result here.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
Cody Devereaux Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company 868 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2015