Cited by

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

209 citing documents.

Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Double J Concrete & Masonry, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Compare City of Brainerd, d at 755 (stating that when the statute is unambiguous, the court interprets the language according to its plain meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory construction), (stating that if a statute is ambiguous, factors set forth by the legislature may be considered for interpreting the statute).
John Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 880 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 880 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If a statute is unambiguous, this court must “enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the Child Of: J.P.-S. and J.D.F., Parents 880 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the Child Of: J.P.-S. and J.D.F., Parents 880 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 –37 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).
Autumn Ridge Landscaping, Inc., Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Autumn Ridge Landscaping, Inc., Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-37 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).
Scott Andren v. James Woodhull Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 878 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott Andren v. James Woodhull Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The first step in statutory interpretation is 8 to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derik Chester Rekdal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derik Chester Rekdal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
“Multiple parts of a statute may be read together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous.”
Kimberlee Ann Nelson v. Lynette Nelson 866 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 2015
Kimberlee Ann Nelson v. Lynette Nelson 866 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (internal quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
(stating that “[mjultiple parts of a statute may be read together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous”); (“[W]e do not examine different provisions [of a statute] in isolation”).
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A statute is only ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes 863 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes 863 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 2015
LHB Properties, LLC v. E. Y. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
LHB Properties, LLC v. E. Y. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cloud, -17 (Minn. 2014) (“If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the unambiguous language of the statute, we apply the statute according to its plain meaning”); (“When we conclude that a statute is unambiguous, our role is to enforce the language of the statute and not to explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” (Quotation omitted)).
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski 860 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2015
Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski 860 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court rejected this argument, finding that respondent was entitled to expungement under subdivision 1, which “provides a specific remedy for specific controlled substance crimes.” 5 The first step in our analysis is to “determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But if the statute is ambiguous, we consider “the factors set forth by the Legislature for interpreting a statute.” (quotation omitted).
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But if the statute is ambiguous, we consider “the factors set forth by the Legislature for 8 interpreting a statute.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A statute is only ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Rotary Systems, Inc. v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, Dynamic Sealing Technologies, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rotary Systems, Inc. v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, Dynamic Sealing Technologies, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-37 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Ramsey County, Y. T. v. Guardian ad Litem, X. L., C. L., Ramsey County, M. Q. Y. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Great Western Industrial Park, LLC v. Randolph Township 853 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Great Western Industrial Park, LLC v. Randolph Township 853 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-37 (Minn.2013) (quotations arid citations omitted).