Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768.

80 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When appellate courts review issues of probable cause, they “view the evidence and all resulting inferences in favor of the State.” n.1 (Minn. 2009).
In the Matter of: Natasha Elizabeth Ann Isenhower, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, ‘the letter of the law shall not be 6 disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.’” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The first question in any statutory interpretation analysis “is whether the 4 statute’s language is ambiguous.”
Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The threshold issue in any statutory interpretation analysis is whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.” State v. Peck
Mary Kate Nguyen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Irv’s Boomin’ Fireworks, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A19-1701 A19-1702 A19-1703 Minn. 2020
Statutory definitions are applied in their entirety and we “have no opportunity to ignore pa rt of the legislature’s definition.” State v. Peck
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But when a statute is unambiguous, we do not consider policy, see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018), lenity, d 768, 772 (Minn. 2009), or statutory history, see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (directing courts not to consider “the former law” or “legislative history” of unambiguous statutes).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hayley Elizabeth Kytta, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dennis Charles Roberts, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The threshold issue in any statutory inte rpretation analysis is whether the statute ’s language is ambiguous.” State v. Peck
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
See State v. Peck , , 772 (Minn. 2009) (explaining the court's statutory interpretation principles); see also Hunstiger v. Kilian , 130 Minn. 474 , 153 N.W.
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Peck , , 772 (Minn. 2009).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Peck , , 770 n.1 (Minn. 2009) ; see State v. Barker , , 354 (Minn. App. 2016) (indicating that probable cause may be based on circumstantial evidence).
Lapenotiere v. State 902 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lapenotiere v. State 902 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, “the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.”
In the MATTER OF the Application of J.M.M. O/B/O Minors for a Change of Name 890 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the MATTER OF the Application of J.M.M. O/B/O Minors for a Change of Name 890 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, “the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16.
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald David Olson 884 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald David Olson 884 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
We have “no opportunity to ignore part of the legislature’s definition,” of “pornographic work.” Finally, our conclusion regarding the unit of prosecution is in accord with the way that foreign courts have viewed the same question.
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
according to their common and approved usage.”); (“When analyzing the plain and ordinary meaning of words or phrases, we have considered dictionary definitions.”).
Boundary Waters Bank v. William H. McGaughey, Lian Y. McGaughey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boundary Waters Bank v. William H. McGaughey, Lian Y. McGaughey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The threshold issue in any statutory interpretation analysis is whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.”
Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. Gerald Koenig Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. Gerald Koenig Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The threshold issue in any statutory interpretation analysis is whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.”
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
LHB Properties, LLC v. E. Y. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
LHB Properties, LLC v. E. Y. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
“Sell” commonly means “to give up (property) to another for money or other valuable consideration.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged 2061 (2002); (“When analyzing the plain and ordinary meaning of words or phrases, we have considered dictionary definitions.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
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
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014