Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
Fleck, d at 307; d 768, 772 (Minn. 2009).
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“When interpreting a statute we must give the statute’s words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A statute is ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“When interpreting a statute we must give the statute’s words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“A statute is ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Barsness 795 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Barsness 795 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
772 n. 4 (Minn.2009) (“The rule of lenity requires us to resolve any ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes in favor of lenity towards the defendant.” (emphasis in original)); Am.
State v. Ahmed 791 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 791 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(adopting this definition from The American Heritage Dictionary 1726 (4th ed.2000)).
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
(“We have no opportunity to ignore part of the legislature’s definition.”).
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by