Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of J.B., 782 N.W.2d 535.

96 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review a district court’s use of contempt powers for an abuse of discretion, and give de novo review to its interpretation of statutes and procedural rules
LHB Properties, LLC v. E. Y. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
LHB Properties, LLC v. E. Y. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, when a statute is ambiguous we apply the canons of construction “to discern the legislature’s intent.”
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, … 860 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2015
Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, … 860 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2015
(discussing the canon “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” that “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”).
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
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
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
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
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013
(concluding that the .district court’s enforcement of statutorily imposed obligations on counties did not violate the separation of powers).
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“If a statute is unambiguous, we interpret the text of the statute according to its plain language.”
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
21, 2000); (“Counties are creations of the Legislature.”).
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 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
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Hous.
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
of Chiropractic Exam’ (applying canon to statutory list of professional services and (applying canon to statute on appointment of public defenders); (applying canon to sentencing guidelines); Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc., (applying canon to entire chapter of statutes)).
Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Cich 788 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Cich 788 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(applying this canon to the statute authorizing the appointment of public defenders); (applying this canon to the sentencing guidelines); Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc., , 457 *522 (Minn.2006) (applying this canon to an entire chapter
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
§ 645.16(8) (2008) (providing that legislative intent may be ascertained by reference to “legislative and administrative interpretations of *152 the statute” only “[w]hen the words of a law are not explicit”); n. 8 (Minn. May 14, 2010) (stating that when a “statute is phrased in common terms, we have declined to defer to administrative expertise”).
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Because the statute is ambiguous, we may seek to ascertain the legislature’s intention by considering the provision “in context with other provisions of the same statute.” (quotation omitted).
In Re the Welfare of S.L.J. 782 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2010
In Re the Welfare of S.L.J. 782 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2010
and B.J.T., Parents, -44 (Minn.2010).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by