Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700.

147 citing documents.

Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We must construe statutory words and phrases “according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2024) (noting “words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage”).
Jerry M. Gelao, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
defines the scope and extent of the interest in land,” including its “specific width, length and location.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).
Susan Neegard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Before applying this language to Neegard’s evidence,3 we recognize that an easement is “an interest in land possessed by another which entitles the grantee of the interest to a limited use or enjoyment of that land.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of the Application of State of Minnesota to Register the Title to Certain Land. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Furthermore, Chodek’s argument that he, as the fee owner of the servient estate, would have to give permission for members of the public to use the easement is contrary to caselaw, in which we have concluded that an easement interest “is not subject to the will of the possessor of the land.” d 23, 28 (Minn. App. 2024) (- 04 (Minn. 2010)).
In Re the Custody of A.L.A.; Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermale Jerome Leonard, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermale Jerome Leonard, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that “the grammatical rule of the last antecedent .
Ken Martin v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, The Legal Marijuana Now Party, ... 6 N.W.3d 443 Minn. 2024
Ken Martin v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, The Legal Marijuana Now Party, ... 6 N.W.3d 443 Minn. 2024
Wayne Willenberg v. Charles Frye, Karla Harrison, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Wayne Willenberg v. Charles Frye, Karla Harrison, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
South Country Health Alliance, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).
A21-0832 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We construe words and phrases “according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2020)
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
Breanna Marie Borth, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We must construe statutory words and phrases “according to th e rules of grammar and common usage.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Minn. 2021
Broadway Child Care Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
In re: the Petition to Adopt A. G. R. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brett Mallberg, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
John Noel McCormick, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Minn. 2020
In Minnesota, an “easement” is an “interest in land owned by another person, consisting in the right to use or control the land for a specific limited purpose.” (quoting Easement, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)).
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.’ ” (quoting Am.
Metropolitan Council, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
ordinarily modifies only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.”
Sokkhan Ka, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Lindmark Endowment for Corporate-Business Ethics Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Defatte 928 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2019
State v. Defatte 928 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2019
" Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Am.
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State v. Rogers 925 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
State v. Rogers 925 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010).
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Larson v. State , , 705 (Minn. 2010).
Ellen Kalahar-Grissom, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
defines the scope and extent of the interest in land.”
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010).
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010).
In re J. L. G. 924 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re J. L. G. 924 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010).
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Larson v. State , , 704 (Minn. 2010).