Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

Cody Devereaux Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company 868 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2015
To interpret a statute, we first assesses “whether the statute’s language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.” Loase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted): When the words of a law are “clear and free from all ambiguity,” the plain meaning controls and will not be “disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit” of the law.
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
Thus, “[i]f the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” 4 Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid 859 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid 859 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2015
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
James W. Stevens, Relator v. S.T. Services and CNA Insurance Companies 851 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 2014
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, d 431, 438 (Minn. 2009) (observing that a court cannot “rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation”).
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
See id.; see also Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (distinguishing between “canons of interpretation,” which are used to determine if a statute is ambiguous, and “canons of construction”).
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (citing Cnty.
Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate 578VYH 821 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2012
Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate 578VYH 821 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2012
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
This separation of powers principle is grounded in the Minnesota Constitution, which prohibits one branch of government from exercising “any powers properly belonging to either of the other[ ] [branches] except in the instances expressly provided in this constitution.” Minn. Const, art. Ill, § 1; see also Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, -38 (Minn.2009) (discussing the “constitutional principle of separation of powers”).
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
No person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others except in the instances expressly provided in this, constitution.”); see also Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (discussing “constitutional principle of separation of powers”).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, , 435 n. 2 (Minn.2009) (explaining that we do not resort to legislative history in the absence of a conclusion that the relevant statute is ambiguous).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
See Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, -40 (Minn. 2009) (noting that “[w]e cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation” because “it is the role of the legislature, not the courts, to rewrite [a] statute to provide greater protection”); see also Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins.
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
See Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2) (2010) (stating that, in statutory construction, "[t]he singular includes the plural; and the plural, the singular”); see also Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, -36 (Minn.2009) (utilizing the canon that "the singular includes the plural” to ascertain the plain meaning of a statute).
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 interpreting a law, we “first assess[ ] whether the [ordinance’s] language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (quotation omitted).
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
When interpreting a statute, we “first assess[] whether the statute’s language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (citation omitted) (internal quotations marks omitted).
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Laase v.2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, , 435 n. 2 (Minn.2009).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by