Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433.

121 citing documents.

Cody Devereaux Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company 868 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2015
Cody Devereaux Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company 868 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2015
First, it preserves a distinction between two different phrases in the third sentence, “limit of liability” and “coverage available.” (“Generally, when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Yer Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti and SFM Risk Solutions, North Memorial Health Care and Mercy Hospital, Relators, … Minn. 2015
Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti 865 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2015
Yer Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti and SFM Risk Solutions, North Memorial Health Care and Mercy Hospital, Relators, … Minn. 2015
See, d 433, 439 (Minn. 2014) (“Generally, ‘when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.’ ” ()).
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
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (Dietzen, J., dissenting) ("We use the ‘canons of interpretation’ set forth in section 645.08 to determine the threshold issue of whether the statutory language is unambiguous.”).
State of Minnesota v. Johannes Marliem Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Johannes Marliem Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
see also City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs.
State of Minnesota v. Keith Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellate courts review questions of statutory interpretation de novo and, when interpreting a statute, “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” d 433, 436 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (concluding that when a criminal statute was ambiguous and none of the alternative reasonable interpretations was most persuasive, under the rule of lenity, the statute would be construed in favor of the defendant).
Curtis B. Braatz v. Parsons Electric Company and Zurich North America/GAB Robins, Inc., Relators. 850 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2014
Curtis B. Braatz v. Parsons Electric Company and Zurich North America/GAB Robins, Inc., Relators. 850 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2014