Cited by

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

147 citing documents.

Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association v. Susan Sween, as Trustee of the George H. Deziel Revocable Trust, United Power … 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 v. Zumbro Township 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 v. Charquandra Charnetta Henry 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 v. Valley Golf Association 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.; Bamidele Adetifa v. Betiel Ambaye Mehari, Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jerome Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jerome Leonard 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, et al v. Charles Frye, et al., Karla Harrison, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Wayne Willenberg, et al v. Charles Frye, et al., Karla Harrison, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Allen Mueller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
South Country Health Alliance, et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Medica Health Plans, HMO … 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).
In the Matter of the Application of Timothy D. Moratzka, Trustee of the Nancy L. Mayen Residual Trust Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson 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 v. Matthew Joseph Borth 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 v. Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
In re: the Petition to Adopt A. G. R Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brett Mallberg v. Mark Gustafson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
John Noel McCormick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. Ziegler Inc., et al. Below, St. Stephens Evangelical Lutheran Church Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018)
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
ordinarily modifies only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.”
Sokkhan Ka v. Lonvigson’s Service Center, Inc. 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 v. Marvin W. Stroschein, et al 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).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by