Cited by

(explaining that dicta, meaning a court’s expressions that are not applicable to the facts before it, are “not binding in subsequent cases” (quotation omitted)), aff’d

(“When interpreting the statutes, it is [appellate courts’] role to rely on what the Legislature intended over what may appear to be supported by public policy.”); (“Determination of what conduct constitutes a criminal offense and the punishm

We “presume that statutes are consistent with the common law unless there is express wording or necessary implication of the intent to abrogate the common law.” see also Matter of Tr.

But “our task in this case, like any other, is not to make legislative policy but to interpret and apply existing statutes.” RDNT, -78 n.5 (Minn. 2015); (considering competing public-policy arguments related to judgment renewals and holding that “policy-related issues are best left to the Legislature.

4 DECISION On appeal from summary judgment, we review “the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

On appeal, we review “the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” –05 (Minn. 2011).

An appellate court reviews “the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district 14 court erred in its application of the law.”

Our holding today clarifies rather than conflicts with Soukup, because “a court’s expressions that go beyond the facts before the court are dicta and are deemed to be merely the individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases.” (quotation omitted), aff’d

“Under Minnesota law, a civil judgme nt survives for a period of ten years after entry of judgment.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 548.09, subd.

DECISION On appeal from summary judgment, we “review the recor d to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

-09 (Minn. App. 2010), aff’d, .

1 (2018); see also Dahlin v. Kroening

1 (2018) (establishing ten-year limitations period for judgments to recover the value of personal property ); (recognizing renewal option).

abrogates the common law before determining that it is ambiguous); (“We presume that statutes are consistent with the common law unless there is express wording or necessary implication of the intent to abrogate the common law.”); –78 (Minn. 1990) (considering whether a statute abrogates the common law without first

This court reviews the record “to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Dahlin v. Kroening

This court “review[s] the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and 6 whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Dahlin v. Kroening

“On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determin e whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Dahlin v. Kroening , -05 (Minn. 2011).

Dahlin v. Kroening , -05 (Minn. 2011).

Dahlin v. Kroening , -05 (Minn. 201 1).

D E C I S I O N “On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” -05 (Minn. 2011).

“On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determin e whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Dahlin v. Kroening , -05 (Minn. 2011).

“On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whet her the district court erred in its application of the law.” -05 (Minn. 2011).

“On appeal fr om summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Dahlin v. Kroening , -05 (Minn. 2011).

ANALYSIS “On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

D E C I S I O N “On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

“On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

DECISION “On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in 3 its application of the law.” -05 (Minn. 2011).

DECISION “On appeal from summary judgment, we must review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” -05 (Minn. 2011).

On appeal from summary judgment, this court reviews whether any genuine issues of material fact remain and “whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” see Minn. R. Civ.