Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Basal, 763 N.W.2d 328.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Joshua Jerome Ingebrigtsen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Joshua Jerome Ingebrigtsen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 426; (presuming that statutory amendments do not apply retroactively absent “clear evidence of retroactive intent”).
Brian Thomas Hughes, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To 6 have retroactive effect, a statutory provision must contain clear evidence of retroactive intent, “such as mention of the word ‘retroactive.’” (citation omitted).
Kristopher Lee Roybal, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Basal , (“When ascertaining the legislature’s intent, we must assume that the legislature does not .
In the Matter of the Petitions of The Auto Club Group, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Basal , 335 (Minn. App. 2009).
A17-0040 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which [this court] review[s] de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Robert Robinson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory in terpretation, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (2012) (stating that amendments go into effect on the next August 1 following enactment, unless otherwise specified); State v. Basal , (noting that amendments are not retroactive without clear evidence of retroactive intent).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which [this court] review[s] de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3(1), did not apply retroac tively because the legislature stated it was “effective January 1, 2008.” (citing 2007 Minn. Laws ch. 147, art. 2, § 64, at 1901).
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.” 20

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by