Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center, 811 N.W.2d 643.

123 citing documents.

Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minnesota Solar, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
, A17-0220, A17-0222 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The right to interstate travel is a fundamental right recognized by the United States Constitution.”
State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
A16-2034 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In appeal A16 -2012, Earthsoils seeks review of the judgment in Steele County District Court file number 74 -CV-16-401.
Robert Atkinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
But this canon is *27 not applicable “except in an exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.” (quoting Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ).
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
We interpret a statute according to its purpose rather than its plain meaning only in the “exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.” (quoting Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ); see Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 612, 617 (Minn. 1993).
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Virgenia M. Ryan v. Potlatch Corporation and Self-Insured/Comp Cost, Inc., Relators. 882 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2016
Virgenia M. Ryan v. Potlatch Corporation and Self-Insured/Comp Cost, Inc., Relators. 882 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
But this canon of construction applies only to ambiguous statutes, except in the “exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.” (quoting Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ).
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. Joseph Francis D'Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. Joseph Francis D'Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend 869 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend 869 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] review as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of statutes de novo.”
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. National Football League, Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. National Football League, Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 643, 649 (Minn. 2012); see also Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enters., Inc., (stating that de novo review applies to a district court’s summary-judgment application of statutory language).
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Janie "Jane" Astramecki v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for The Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bank of New York Mellon v. Keiran 863 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bank of New York Mellon v. Keiran 863 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Jurisdiction is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
The Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for The Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Jurisdiction is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Allen Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Allen Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brooks also argues that the district court’s application of the seat-belt statute violates his right to interstate travel, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.3 “The right to interstate travel is a fundamental right recognized by the United States Constitution.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lee Oulman v. Wade Setter, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randy Lee Oulman v. Wade Setter, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 643, 653 (Minn. 2012).
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
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
More importantly, the rule of construction that Justice Wright cites is "not available to override the plain language of a clear and unambiguous statute, except in an exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ’utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.”
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “limited the property rights that are entitled to due process to real property rights, final judgments, and certain vested statutory rights.”
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
The rule discussed in Wegener is “not available to override the plain language of a clear and unambiguous statute, except in an exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.” (citing Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ).