Cited by

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).

We will “not read into [a] statute a requirement that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC

Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC

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 .

See Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, ; Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.

“[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).

“[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).

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).

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).

When we have interpreted a statute, “our interpretation becomes part -of the statute.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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).

We generally do not “read into the statute a requirement that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC

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).

We generally do not “read into the statute a requirement 9 that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC

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)).