Cited by

The 9 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 83 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “any” as, “One, some, every, or all without specification”); –37 (Minn. 2013) (explaining that words in a statute are generally to be given their ordinary meaning).

A statute or rule is ambiguous “if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

A statute or rule is ambiguous “if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024); (stating that, if a statute is ambiguous, we “may consider the factors set forth by the [l]egislature for interpreting a statute.” (quotation omitted)).

“A statute is only ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

We read a statute “to give effect to all its provisions,” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024), and interpret the statute as a whole, considering the individual provision at issue in light of the surrounding provisions to avoid conflicting interpretations, d 248, 251 (Minn. App. 1996), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotations omitted).

d 532, 535 (Minn. 2013).

-37 (Minn. 2013) (“Multiple parts of a statute may be read together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous.”).

-37 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

v. County of Ramsey, -37 (Minn. 2013).

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotations omitted).

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotations omitted).

Only when the statute, or rule, has more than one reasonable interpretation do we look to other factors, -38 (Minn. 2013); we keep in mind the presumption against reaching a result that is absurd or unreasonable.

While parties in custody disputes are generally entitled to a contested evidentiary hearing prior to an initial determination of custody, d 532, 543 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518.168(c)), the parties in this case relinquished t heir right to a trial.

A rule is ambiguous if its language is “sub ject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

“The first step in statuto ry interpretation is to determine whether the statute ’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).

” Christianson v. Henke , .

“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotations omitted).

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotation omitted).

The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotations omitted).

Our goal in statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotations 6 omitted).

A statute is ambiguous if its language is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

d 532, 536 (Minn. 2013).

Christianson v. Henke , –37 (Minn. 2013).

A statute is ambiguous if its language is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Christianson v. Henke

See Christianson v. Henke , –37 (Minn. 2013) (describing statutory interpretation principles).

d 532, 536 (Minn. 2013).

of J.B., (“Resort to legislative history to interpret a statute is generally appropriate only where the statute itself is ambiguous.”); (“A statute is only ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one 8 reasonable interpretation.”).