Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby, 848 N.W.2d 515.

36 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Sarah Lynn Nelson, n/k/a Sarah Lynn Derry v. Abel Aaron Nelson, Ramsey County, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Whether a district court judgeship qualifies as a ‘local’ office under Minn. Stat. § 351.02(4) is a question of first impression for our court, and as a matter of statutory interpretation, it is one that we review de novo.”).
State of Minnesota v. Rajuan Marquice Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Finally, Jones argues that his interpretation of the statute follows the canon of constitutional avoidance and “is the only one that avoids conflicts between section 624.713 and the Second Amendment.” “The constitutional avoidance canon requires that we avoid constitutional confrontations ‘if it is possible to do so.’” State v. Irby , n.5 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Gaiovnik , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant Minn. 2025
where, as here, the statutory language is ambiguous.” –22 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
A19-1878 Minn. 2021
20 rights with a tightly truncated limitations period.11 – 22 (Minn. 2014) (discussing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Wendt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Irby , –18 (Minn. 2014).
Minn. 2020
Such constructions are especially appropriate when “given the lack of a clear statement of legislative intent.”
Sakariya Ali Aden v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A judicial officer’s authority to conduct a trial is a legal question that we review de novo.” -18 (Minn. 2014) (apply ing de novo review on appeal despite failure to object to the judge presiding at trial because the issue involves a “fundamental question of judicial authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Deangelas Demoyne Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A judicial officer’s authority to conduct a trial is a legal question that we review de novo.” -18 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Beckstrand Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–37 (Minn. App. 2012), aff’d on other grounds
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Although we will construe a statute to avoid a constitutional violation, including a violation of separation-of-powers principles, see State v. Irby , , 521-22 (Minn. 2014), the plain language controls, and we will not construe that language in a way that renders plain terms superfluous, 328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Props.
Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton 903 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2017
Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton 903 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2017
(noting that we will construe- statutes to avoid a constitutional confrontation, including “to avoid potential separation of powers problems”); , 269 n.3 (Minn. 1998) (“It is well-settled law that courts should not reach constitutional issues if matters can be resol
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. DeQuan Ramel Bares-Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Irby , - 38 (Minn. App. 2012), aff’d on other grounds
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014); 4
Jason Daniel Gustafson v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Daniel Gustafson v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
aff’d on other grounds, d 515 (Minn. 2014).
In re Application of EOF Investments, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Application of EOF Investments, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[w]e begin with the text”).
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
Bjorklund Companies, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bjorklund Companies, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A statute is ambiguous if its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014