Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership, 827 N.W.2d 752.

70 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit, Below, Metropolitan Council, Relator. 868 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit, Below, Metropolitan Council, Relator. 868 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. National Football League, Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights 868 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. National Football League, Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights 868 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
P’ship, (“When legislative intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning .
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(court cannot add words of qualification to statute that legislature has omitted).
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 839 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 839 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
P’ship, (citing Minn.Stat.
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
P’ship, (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012)).
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
P’ship, (noting that we will not add words to a statute that have not been supplied by the Legislature).
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corp. 834 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corp. 834 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
P’ship, (reasoning that legislature did not intend for statute to apply differently to state-owned property, relying on legislature’s use of language distinguishing property owned by the state in another part of the Minnesota statutes, which indicated that the legislature “knows how to make that distinction c

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by