Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280.

114 citing documents.

Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“It is axiomatic that it is the State’s burden to prove every element of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
10 Pro se arguments Sufficiency of the evidence “It is axiomatic that it is the State’s burden to prove every element of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.”
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
-85 (Minn.2015); see also Allan, d at 33 (“When the language of a statute is plain'and unambiguous, it is assumed‘to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”) ().
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“It is axiomatic that it is the State’s burden to prove every element of the charged offense.”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent.”
In Re Bobo 376 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1985