Cited by

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

151 citing documents.

Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com 880 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2016
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Thomas v. Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 869 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 2015
Thomas v. Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 869 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 2015
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
When interpreting a statute, we “give words and phrases their plain and • ordinary meaning.” Hayes, d at 803 -04 (quoting Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2012))).
State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (stating that courts may not add words to a statute “that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked” by the legislature).
Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2015
Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2015
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 868 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 868 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When the language of a mechanic’s lien statute is unclear or ambiguous, we have liberally construed the statute in favor of the mechanic’s lien claimant.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015
When construing a statute, we “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” Premier Bank v. 4 Becker Dev., LLC, (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2008)).
Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, … 860 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2015
Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, … 860 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2015
of Olmsted, (stating that we cannot “add words to a statute ‘that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked’ by the Legislature” (quoting Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, )).
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
involves a' failure of expression or an ambiguity of expression.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
involves a failure of expression or an ambiguity of expression.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
LumiData, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2014
LumiData, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2014
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012).
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellate courts “review a decision to grant or deny summary judgment de novo.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
See Krueger, d at 864 (concluding that we “cannot read into the statute any additional rights” beyond those expressly enumerated); Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (“If the legislature fails to address a particular topic, our rules of construction ‘forbid adding words or meaning to a statute’ that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, )).
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
See Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (stating that we will not add words to a statute “that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked” by the Legislature).
In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
We will not add words to a statute that the Legislature has “purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
When interpreting a statute, “we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2012)).
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Cf. Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, ("If the legislature fails to address a particular topic, our rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
See Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (stating that this court will not add “words or meaning to a statute that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
When we interpret a statute, “we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (citing Minn.Stat.
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 839 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 839 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
See Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (“If the legislature fails to address a particular topic, our rules of construction ‘forbid adding words or meaning to a statute’ that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, )).
Continental Hydraulics Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 832 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Continental Hydraulics Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 832 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A statute is ambiguous when the language is “susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 832 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2013
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 832 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2013
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by