Cited by

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

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Abigail Violet Hollingsworth 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 v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 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 v. Paul Schnell 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 v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Darcourt Castellanos Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Michael Schirmer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Basal , 335 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Gila Angela Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darrol Allen Shepersky Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luis Antonio Pimentel Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Larson 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 v. Dustin Spencer Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tramaine Smith, a/k/a Darryl Green Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Robert Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Vincent Leith Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerry Thomas Cardinal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Abel Ricardo Mendoza, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory in terpretation, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. William Alphonso Warr 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 v. Chelsey Marie Conn Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Lynette Marie Robbins 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 v. Chad Timothy Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The retroactivity of a statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Shane Douglas Lynch 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., et al 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc., et al 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