Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478.

123 citing documents.

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
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 886 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 886 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2016
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
See Staab, d at 72 ; -85 (Minn.2013) (concluding that a technical meaning was reasonable given the statutory context).
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Somsalao Thonesavanh 880 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Somsalao Thonesavanh 880 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 478, 482 (Minn. 2013).
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 878 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2016
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 878 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2016
340 ; (articulating the rule that “ ‘no citizen should be held accountable for a violation- of a statute whose commands are uncertain’ ” (quoting United States v. Santas, 553 U.S. 507, 514 , 128 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Letrell Pierre Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Letrell Pierre Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then [a court] interpret[s] the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” (citation omitted).
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 877 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 877 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If the [l]egislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” (citations omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014).
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
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adaiah Deontraie Townsend 872 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adaiah Deontraie Townsend 872 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.”
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then [a court] interpret[s] the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” 3 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If the Legislature’s intent is clear from [a] statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
(citing City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs.
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2015
Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2015
d 478, 482 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted).
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
When interpreting a statute, if “context suggests that a group of words have something in common, each word should be ascribed a meaning that is consistent with its accompanying words.”
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
Thus, “[i]f the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” 4 Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe
State of Minnesota v. Johannes Marliem Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Johannes Marliem Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Accordingly, we proceed on the assumption that section 169.30(b) is ambiguous 3 and “consider extrinsic canons of statutory construction to ascertain the statute’s meaning.”
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
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015