Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357.

70 citing documents.

Ortell v. City of Nowthen 814 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Ortell v. City of Nowthen 814 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Dakota v. Cameron 812 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Dakota v. Cameron 812 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“[I]f a statute is ambiguous, [appellate courts] apply canons of construction to discern the Legislature’s intent.”); Am.
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
(noting that the “Legislature has the primary responsibility to establish the spending priorities for the state through the enactment of appropriation laws” (citing Minn. Const, art. IV, § 22; Minn. Const, art. XI, § 1)).
Young v. Jesson 796 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Young v. Jesson 796 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC
Nelson v. Levy 796 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Nelson v. Levy 796 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Carney v. State 792 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carney v. State 792 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
These budgetary unallotments are more generally described in the supreme court’s -61 (Minn.2010).
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(quotations and citations omitted).
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 787 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 787 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010