Cited by

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

147 citing documents.

Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2018
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2018
" 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis , , 290 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010) ).
In re C. S. N. 917 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re C. S. N. 917 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010).
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*536 Larson v. State , , 703 (Minn. 2010).
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
see also Larson v. State , , 705 (Minn. 2010) ("[A] limiting phrase ...
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
Statutory interpretation begins by assessing “whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quoting Am.
Nationwide Housing Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. 2018
Appeal of Krenik 903 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2017
Appeal of Krenik 903 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2017
to ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.’” (quoting Am.
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
City of Rochester v. Kottschade 896 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2017
City of Rochester v. Kottschade 896 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2017
3 *546 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” ().
Nelson v. State 896 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nelson v. State 896 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nordling, 231 Minn. at 77 , d at 582 .
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.” ().
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 895 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 895 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[A] rule of liberal construction does not apply where ...
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, Louisiana 883 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2016
City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, Louisiana 883 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2016
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
2011) (concluding that a comma 10 separating the qualifying phrase from antecedent phrases is an indication the qualifying phrase is intended to modify all antecedents instead of solely that which immediately precedes it, and rejecting application of the last-antecedent rule because it would render statutory language superfluous); (applying the last-antecedent canon and concluding that a limiting phrase modifies its nearest antecedent).
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
The phrase “in the commitment of any individual” clearly modifies the phrase “proeedurally or physically assisting,” but it does not modify the phrase “act pursuant to any provision of this chapter.” (“[T]he grammatical rule of the last ante *552 cedent ...
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Robert P. Carlson, North Shore Federal Credit Union, Below. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Robert P. Carlson, North Shore Federal Credit Union, Below. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When 4 the state takes over a county road as a trunk highway, it is “vested with all rights, titles, easements and appurtenances thereto appertaining.” Minn. Stat. § 161.18 (2014); (holding that when state holds an easement because of condemnation, it holds the easement “in its entirety” and the unused portion is not subject to discharge under condemnation statutes).
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of the Condemnation of Right-of-Way by Minnesota Power, a divison of ALLETE, Inc., a Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Condemnation of Right-of-Way by Minnesota Power, a divison of ALLETE, Inc., a Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Yer Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti and SFM Risk Solutions, North Memorial Health Care and Mercy Hospital, Relators, … Minn. 2015
Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti 865 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2015
Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti 865 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2015
Yer Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti and SFM Risk Solutions, North Memorial Health Care and Mercy Hospital, Relators, … Minn. 2015
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first step in statutory interpretation is to “determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).
Jeffrey Apitz v. Terry Hopkins 863 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2015