Cited by

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

209 citing documents.

Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013).
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 537 (Minn. 2013).
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Christianson v. Henke , , 535 (Minn. 2013).
Minn. 2018
(stating that we review statutory interpretation questions de novo); Bus.
Appeal of Krenik 903 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2017
Appeal of Krenik 903 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2017
(stating that when “a statute is unambiguous, 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)).
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
State v. Carson 902 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2017
State v. Carson 902 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2017
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1612 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016); -37 (Minn. 2013).
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
State v. Lopez 897 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Lopez 897 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Concluding that the statute is unambiguous is determinative for the present question.”).
In Re the Matter of the Application of: John Doe for a Change of Birthdate to April 10, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Peterson v. City of Minneapolis 892 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2017
Peterson v. City of Minneapolis 892 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2017
The “goal of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Joshua Ryan Beckendorf v. Jordana Leslie Fox 890 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Joshua Ryan Beckendorf v. Jordana Leslie Fox 890 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Further, “[m]ultiple parts of a statute may be read together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous.”
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
Founders Insurance Company v. James Yates 888 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2016
Founders Insurance Company v. James Yates 888 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]f the statutory language is unambiguous, [the court] must enforce the plain meaning of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.”); (discussing statutory interpretation).
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
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that statutory interpretation is a question of law that is subject to de novo review).
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A statute is only ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Jason Hoff v. Earl Surman 883 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Hoff v. Earl Surman 883 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he goal of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” (quotation omitted).
J & W Asphalt, Inc. v. Belle Plaine Township, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 883 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
J & W Asphalt, Inc. v. Belle Plaine Township, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 883 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Double J Concrete & Masonry, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016