Cited by

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

147 citing documents.

Jeffrey Apitz v. Terry Hopkins 863 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.” d 700, 704 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Scherger, d at 580).
Prime Security Bank v. A&G Investments, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prime Security Bank v. A&G Investments, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first step in statutory interpretation is to “determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid 859 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid 859 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2015
If a statute is unambiguous, then we “must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
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
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).
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
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).
Donald D. David v. Bartel Enterprises (Nitro Green), Relator, and SFM Mutual Insurance Company, Relator. 856 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2014
Donald D. David v. Bartel Enterprises (Nitro Green), Relator, and SFM Mutual Insurance Company, Relator. 856 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2014
We apply the plain meaning of unambiguous statutes, see also Minn.Stat.
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Todd Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration 851 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2014
Todd Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration 851 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2014
See, d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 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
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
On the other hand, if a statute is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation, “then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
On the other hand, if a statute is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation, “then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 837 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 2013
500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 837 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
The first step in statutory interpretation is to “ ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.’ ” (quoting Am.
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
Billion v. Commissioner of Revenue 827 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2013
Billion v. Commissioner of Revenue 827 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2013
(“[A] rule of liberal construction does not apply where ...
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
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
("The word 'the' is a definitive and when used before a noun has a specifying and particularizing effect.” (quoting Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 115 , )).