Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532.

209 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Multiple parts of a statute may be read together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous,” and we will construe its undefined words and phrases “according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” -37 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In determining whether a statute is ambiguous, we will construe the statute’s words and phrases according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Christianson v. Henke , -37 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Christianson v. Henke , -37 (Minn. 2013) 5 A controlled access lot is a “lot used to a ccess public waters or as a recreation area for owners of nonriparian lots within the same subdivision containing th e controlled access lot.” Scandia, Minn., Dev.
Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Charles Randal Ashman. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Custody of: S. E. R. R., DOB 08/07/2002, S. L. R. R., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction and a determination of the meaning of statutes addressing subject -matter jurisdiction present legal questions, which this court reviews de novo.” aff’d
In re Jeffrey Krogstad, M.D., et al., Petitioners, Minn. 2021
Our goal in statutor y interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (citation omitted) (inter nal quotation marks omitted).
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-37 (Minn. 2013) (“[T]he goal of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotation omitted)).
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous.” Christianson v. Henke
In the Matter of: E. D. M., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” Christianson v. Henke , (quotation omitted).
Court of A ppeals Chutich, J. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC, Respondent, vs. Minn. 2020
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian James Turner. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jill Melisa Sinda, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018)
Minn. 2020
If the statute’s la nguage is ambiguous, we may “look beyond the plain language of the statute to ascertain the intent of the Legislature.”
Brett Mallberg, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When a statute does not define a term, courts give th e term its “plain and ordinary meaning.” Christianson v. Henke , 36-37 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Christianson v. Henke , (quotations omitted ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In determining whether a statute is ambiguous, [courts] will construe the statute’s words and phrases according to their plain and ordinary 23 meaning.” Christianson v. Henke , (M inn.
James Salvatore Bergman, Minn. 2020
William Furlow, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-37 (Minn. 2013) (quotation s and citations omitted).
Minn. 2020
“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018), our “role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” (citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
In re: the Petition of M.L.H. and J.N.H. to Adopt S.G.P. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that we “are to read and construe a statute as a whole and must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations” (quotation omitted)), aff’d
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Where there are no disputed facts, “the application of the law to [those] facts is a question of law and fully reviewable by appellate courts.” Christianson v. Henke , (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,” id., “our role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christianson v. Henke , d 532, 537 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
Christianson v. Henke , , 536 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
LaPlant Properties, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” Christianson v. Henke , (quotations omitted).
Joel S. Rabbe, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Peterson v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. 930 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Peterson v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. 930 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
In re: Estate of Sandra Sandland, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Debra L. Cich, et al., petitioners, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
See Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013) (holding that if we conclude a statute is unambiguous, our role is not to explore its spirit or purpose (citing Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , , 836 (Minn. 2012) ) ).
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013).
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 916 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 916 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 535 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Decker 916 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 2018
State v. Decker 916 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013).
Funk v. O'Connor 916 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2018
Funk v. O'Connor 916 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 535 (Minn. 2013).
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue 914 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 2018
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue 914 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 2018
"When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity," Minn. Stat. § 645.16 , "our role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law," Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 536 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016).
Laymon v. Minn. Premier Props., LLC 913 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2018
Laymon v. Minn. Premier Props., LLC 913 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2018
See Christianson v. Henke , , 535 (Minn. 2013) ("The only disputed issue before us is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.").
In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Renewal of Therapeutic Massage License Numbers EMT-13217 and … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.4 (Minn. 2013 ) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016) (listing factors for consideration in determining legisl ative intent).
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018