Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606.

116 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Somsalao Thonesavanh 880 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 “When the court is faced with an ambiguous criminal statute, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant in the interest of lenity.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Angela K. Schreader v. DC & D Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Above Summit Construction Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Angela K. Schreader v. DC & D Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Above Summit Construction Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In the absence of a statutory definition, we generally turn to the plain, ordinary meaning of a statutory phrase.”
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See id.; (stating that “[t]he offense [of first- degree assault (deadly force against peace officer)] is subject to a minimum sentence”).
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 609.535 does not define “a check given for a past consideration.” “In the absence of a statutory definition, we generally turn to the plain, ordinary meaning of a statutory phrase.”
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In the absence of a statutory definition, we generally turn to the plain, ordinary meaning of a statutory phrase.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014).
Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development 860 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development 860 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 606, 611 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A statute is only ambiguous when the language therein is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
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
“When a statutory provision is ambiguous, it is appropriate to turn to the canons of statutory construction to ascertain a statute’s meaning.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“‘The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.’” (quotation omitted).
BVA Equities, LLC, Relator v. City of New Hope Minn. Ct. App. 2014
BVA Equities, LLC, Relator v. City of New Hope Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2012)
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ward 847 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ward 847 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
Justice Lillehaug appears to support his interpretation by application of the canon of in pari mate-ria, which “ ‘allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the mean *442 ing of ambiguous statutory language.’” (); , 816 n. 3 (Minn.2004) (describing the canon of in pari materia).
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Pageau v. State 820 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Pageau v. State 820 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that ambiguity exists when language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation).