Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 835 N.W.2d 14.

21 citing documents.

Keith D Hagfors, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sara E Hagfors v. Fairview Health Services, … Minn. 2026
Cf. Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, (interpreting the statute at issue “the same way in this case that we did in” a previous case involving the same statute).
Tyrone Murphy v. Aeon, Steven Scott Management, Inc., et al.; Kings Manor, LLC, vs. Tyrone D. Murphy, John … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Furthermore, we discern nothing in the plain language of the lockout statute that authorizes “partial, temporary” lockouts, and we decline to “read into the statute a requirement that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, d 14, 19 (Minn. 2013).
Save Indus Group, et al v. Ind. School District No. 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will “not read into [a] statute a requirement that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC
Chad Monson, et al v. Thomas J. Egge, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC
Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
See, e.g., Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, n.4 (Minn. 2013) (“[S]ection 181.79 is not part of the PWA or the MFLSA.”); Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., (“Minn. Stat. § 181.79 is not .
Joseph D. Roach v. Lapp, Libra, Thomson, Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, ; Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.
Jason Carlson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and ask whether there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the prevailing party.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, (quotation omitted).
Carney Lien v. Casper Construction, Inc., et al., Veit & Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and as k whether there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the prevailing party.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, d 14, 17 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Alex Cooper v. Christopher Beaver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing the denial of a motion for JMOL, appellate courts construe the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and ask whether there i s [a] legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the prevailing party.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC , (quotati on omitted).
SM Investments, LLC v. Roger Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing the denial of a motion for JMOL, appellate courts construe the evid ence “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and as k whether there is a legally su fficient evidentia ry basis for a reasonable jury to find for the prevailing party.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, d 14, 17 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC 900 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2017
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC 900 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2017
When we have interpreted a statute, “our interpretation becomes part -of the statute.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Scott Raden v. The Estate of Marvin Tvedt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When reviewing the denial of a motion for JMOL, appellate courts “construe th e evidence in the light most favorable to 7 the prevailing party and ask whether there is [a] legally sufficient ev identiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the prevailing party.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, d 14, 17 (Minn. 2013) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Jason Morgan Worsfold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We generally do not “read into the statute a requirement that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Jason Morgan Worsfold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, n.4 (Minn. 2013) (holding that Brekke’s definition of “wages” controls when a claim implicates section 181.79).
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
We generally do not “read into the statute a requirement 9 that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC
In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
See Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, (“Once we interpret a statute, our interpretation becomes part of the statute as though written therein.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).