Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799.

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that whether a defendant’s conduct met the statutory definition of a crime presents a question of statutory interpretation, reviewed de novo).
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(declining to “consider the remaining prongs of the plain-error test” after concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”); –31 (Minn. 2010) (concluding in context of plain-error review that “the distri
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 799, 808 (Minn. 2013) (declining to “consider the remaining prongs of the plain-error test” after concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”).
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
State v. Nodes 849 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Nodes 849 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
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
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court interpreting a statute must apply its unambiguous plain meaning, reading the statute “as a whole,”
500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 837 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 2013
500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 837 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court, when interpreting a statute, must apply its unambiguous plain meaning, and, in doing so, may consider “dictionary definitions,” and “Black’s Law Dictionary,” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., , 759 n. 2 (Minn.2010) ( (using Black’s Law Dictiona
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that a question of statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo); (“Whether an offense is subject to multiple sentences under Minn.Stat.