Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rohmiller v. Hart, 811 N.W.2d 585.

127 citing documents.

Ripley Karen Bresson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see Rohmiller v. Hart , d 585, 590 (Minn. 2012) (“We cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted.”); Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, d 753, 759 (Minn. 2010) (“[I]f the language of a statute is clear and free from ambiguity, our rule is to enforce the language of the statute, and not expl
Bruton v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 2019
Bruton v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 2019
Rohmiller v. Hart , , 590 (Minn. 2012).
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Rohmiller v. Hart , , 590 (Minn. 2012) ("We cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted.").
Erin G. Aasen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Thor Richard Asfeld, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
0-92 (Minn. 2012); Olson, d at 550 .
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
-91 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the court cannot add to a statute words that were intentionally or inadvertently left out by the Legislature); Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62 , (stating that the court construes a law as a whole and interprets each section in light of the su
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing 896 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2017
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing 896 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2017
App. P. 110.01, 116.04; , 596 n.10 (Minn. 2012)
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“We cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted.”).
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … 888 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick H. Horan, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick H. Horan, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We therefore may not “supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” (quotation omitted).
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … 888 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co. v. Lennartson, 8 ().
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co. v. Lennartson, 8 ().
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin 886 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin 886 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
already exists.” Id.; (declining to apply ambiguity by silence because the statute was “not completely silent on the contested issue”).
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC v. Les Nielsen 886 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2016
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC v. Les Nielsen 886 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2016
KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council 884 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2016
Anthony Hernandez v. Minnesota Board of Teaching Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anthony Hernandez v. Minnesota Board of Teaching Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that courts cannot add words or meaning to a statute that the legislature omitted).
In Re the Custody of N.I.O. Jeremiah R. Peck v. Melanie A. Sauter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Custody of N.I.O. Jeremiah R. Peck v. Melanie A. Sauter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification of an Appropriate Unit Independent School District No. 622, North … 880 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification of an Appropriate Unit Independent School District No. 622, North … 880 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 878 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2016
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
(“We cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted.”).1 Moreover, in contrast to the provisions related to commissioner-filed returns, the Legislature requires signatures for other types of assessment documents.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
But when a statute is “completely silent on a contested issue,” we do not look beyond the statutory text to discern its meaning unless there is an “ambiguity of expression” — rather than a “failure of expression.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, ).
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
“Our objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature, reading the statute as a whole.” (citing Minn.Stat.
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
“Our objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature, reading the statute as a whole.” d 585, 589 (Minn. 2012) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)).
Joyce Elaine Hansen v. Jeffrey Ray Hanson, Joni Michelle Herdrich Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joyce Elaine Hansen v. Jeffrey Ray Hanson, Joni Michelle Herdrich Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
The parties do not dispute that the victim's economic loss occurred “as a result of the offense.” Unlike the dissent of Justice Page, we do not interpret this language to mean "the offense of conviction.” (“We cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: A. B. Wayne Belisle v. Yana Verzhbitskaya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: A. B. Wayne Belisle v. Yana Verzhbitskaya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–15 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015