Cited by

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

127 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
When interpreting a statute, our objective is to “effectuate the intent of the legislature, reading the statute as a whole.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)).
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(dissuading a court from adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted).
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
(listing examples where a statute’s silence rendered the statute ambiguous).
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bjorklund Companies, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bjorklund Companies, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has recognized that “silence does not render a statute ambiguous unless the silence renders the statute susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 585, 590 (Minn. 2012) (listing examples where a statute’s silence rendered the statute ambiguous).
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao 854 N.W.2d 750 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
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
("We cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted.”).
Interstate Traffic Signs, Inc. v. Commissioner 845 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2014
Interstate Traffic Signs, Inc. v. Commissioner 845 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2014
We have recognized that “silence does not render a statute ambiguous unless the silence renders the statute susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 818 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2012
Jensen Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc. v. Board of Regents 817 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Jensen Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc. v. Board of Regents 817 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“Our objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature, reading the statute as a whole.”).