Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753.

151 citing documents.

In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, see also Minn.Stat.
Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC 829 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2013
Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC 829 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2013
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citation omitted); Minn.Stat.
Billion v. Commissioner of Revenue 827 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2013
Billion v. Commissioner of Revenue 827 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2013
a statute is unambiguous on its face.”); Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (concluding that a court cannot ignore the plain meaning of statute in the guise of liberal construction); La Bere v. Palmer, 232 Minn. 203, 205 , (rejecting the application of the canon of liberal construction for a remedial statute because “[c]onstruction belongs wholly to
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership 827 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
When interpreting a statute, we “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” *804 Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2012)).
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
Id.; Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
See Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (noting that this court may not add words to a statute).
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Our rules of statutory interpretation (which we apply to regulations) do not permit us to add words to a regulation whether the words were “purposefully omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
to place a lien against the property improved.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citing Minn. Stat. § 514.01 (2008)).
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
§ 645.16 (2010); see Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (applying section 645.16).
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citation omitted).
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Savela v. City of Duluth 806 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2011
Bearder v. State 806 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2011
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
2, is one that interprets the statute as expiring "after election day.” But we do not read language into a statute that the Legislature has "purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, see also Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Bearder v. State 806 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2011
See id.; see also Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
“[Silence in a statute regarding a particular topic does not render the statute unclear or ambiguous unless the statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[W]hen the language of a mechanic’s lien statute is unclear and ambiguous, it should be liberally construed in favor of a mechanic’s lien claimant,” but when statutory language is “clear and free from ambiguity, [the court’s] role is to enforce the language of the statute, and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, -59 (Minn.2010) (emphasis added).
Frederick Farms, Inc. v. County of Olmsted 801 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2011
Frederick Farms, Inc. v. County of Olmsted 801 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2011
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC 801 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2011
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC 801 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2011
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
First, we have said that “silence in a statute regarding a particular topic does not render the statute unclear or ambiguous unless the statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“If the legislature fails to address a particular topic, our rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that are purposely *616 omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (quotation omitted).
Young v. Jesson 796 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Young v. Jesson 796 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
§ 645.16; Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC 791 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2010