Cited by

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

123 citing documents.

Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo); (questions of law are reviewed de novo).
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[W]henever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous.”).
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Judicial construction of a statute becomes part of the statute as though it were written therein.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice, Appellant./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice, Appellant./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“If 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.”).
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.”
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
("If 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.”).
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When interpreting a statute, we generally are guided by the definitions provided by the Legislature.”
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(noting with disapproval that, “[i]f we applied the same statutory definition of ‘transfer’ in both places, our interpretation would render the statute redundant and we would fail to give independent effect to every word in the statute”).