Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643.

123 citing documents.

State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(affirming restitution based on a felony conviction where victim did not make a restitution claim).
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Borg 834 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2013
State v. Borg 834 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2013
as part of his sentence.” (emphasis added).
Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.”
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
We need not resolve that thorny separation of powers problem here, however, because “we are to construe statutes to avoid a constitutional confrontation if it is possible to do so.” see also Giem, d at 429 (“We have held that if we can construe a statute to avoid a constitutional confrontation, we are to do so.”); (“Again, we employ the principle that this court must construe a statute in such a way as to avoid constitutiona
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 818 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2012
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 818 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2012
“When interpreting statutes, we do not examine different provisions in isolation.”
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Co., 215 Minn. 394, 409 , (explaining that we construe statutes in light of their context); (‘When interpreting statutes, we do not examine different provisions in isolation.”).
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
(“When interpreting statutes, we do not examine different provisions in isolation.
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Id.; (‘When interpreting statutes, we do not examine different provisions in isolation”).
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
(“When interpreting statutes, we do not examine different provisions in isolation.”) We construe statutes “as a whole” and “in the light of their context.” See Christensen v. Hennepin Transp.
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
in the light of their context.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Ndikum 802 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Ndikum 802 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2011