Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite LaMont v. Independent School District 728, 814 N.W.2d 14.

36 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Barbara Henry, Minn. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
No. 728, see also G&I (citing Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 439 (3d ed. 2011) (observing that “including” “should not be used to introduce an exhaustive list, for it implies that the list is only partial”).
Minn. 2022
No. 728, d 14, 19 (Minn. 2012) (“The word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive.”); see also Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 439 (3d ed. 2011) (observing that “including” “should not be used to introduce an exhaustive list, for it implies that the list is only partial”).
Don Lorge, Minn. 2022
No. 728, (“The word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive.”).
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Kaye Feneis, n/k/a Brenda Kay Blazek, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
No. 728 , (noting that “includes” is not “exhaustive or exclusive”); Peterson v. City of Minneapolis , (“includes” is a “a term of enlargement, not restriction”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
No. 728, (“The word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive.”).
A20-1351 Minn. 2021
No. 728, (stating that the “word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive” when used in a statute).
Terry L. Smeby, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
No. 728, (stating “[t]he word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive”).
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
No. 728, –22 (Minn. 2012).
Michael Noel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 728, -21 (Minn. 2012).
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Bridgette A. Allan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Yolanda Majors, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
James Michael Olsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Douglas v. Stillwater Area Public Schools 899 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Douglas v. Stillwater Area Public Schools 899 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
No. 728, (“The word “includes” is not exhaustive or exclusive.”); Sunrise Lake Ass’n, Inc. v. Chisago Cty.
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
Scott Peterson, Roger Smith v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott Peterson, Roger Smith v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
No. 728, (“The use of the word ‘includes’ does not narrow claims of discrimination based on sex to claims of sexual harassment.
Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A. 872 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A. 872 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Richard Eugene Heggemeyer v. Town Board of Supervisors, Spalding Township, Aitkin County, MN Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Richard Eugene Heggemeyer v. Town Board of Supervisors, Spalding Township, Aitkin County, MN Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Berg a/k/a Rob Berg v. Keith Waters & Associates, Inc., Portico Green, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Berg a/k/a Rob Berg v. Keith Waters & Associates, Inc., Portico Green, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Gordon Brown 849 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 2014
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Gordon Brown 849 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 2014
In re the Estate of Pawlik 845 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Estate of Pawlik 845 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
No. 728, (stating that “[t]he word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive”); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 888 (5th ed.2011) (defining “include” as “[t]o contain or take in as a part, element, or member” and “[t]o consider as part of or allow into a group or class”).
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 817 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 817 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
No. 728, (noting that the third factor requires a plaintiff to prove that "the harassment was based on membership in a protected group” (quoting Goins, d at 725 )).