Cited by

“The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is not granted where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” (discharging a writ granted to a university employee who had failed to exhaust the university’s grievance process) (quotation omitted); see also Stephens v. Bd.

d 288, 291 (Minn. 2015).

See, e.g., STRIB IV, - 9 24 (Minn. 2015)

d 288, 294 (Minn. 2015) (“When the Legislature uses different words [in a statute], we normally presume that those words have different meanings.”); (stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”); see also Minn. Sta

See, e.g., STRIB IV, -24 (Minn. 2015); American Family Ins.

“[D]efects in subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived by the parties.” (citing Nelson, d at 291-92).

6 (Minn. 2017); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(explaining that “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them” (quotation omitted)); - 75 (Minn. 1990) (holding that the role of the court of appeals is to correct errors, not to find fact s).

“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988); (quoting this aspect of Sefkow).

And when “the Legislature uses different words, we 14 normally presume that those words have different meanings.” Nelson v. Schlener

d 288, 294 (Minn. 2015) (“When the Legislature uses different words, we normally presume that those words have different meanings.”).

In Williams, we stated that a party may raise subject matter jurisdiction issues at any time during the course of litigating a dispute and that the right to do so “cannot be waived.” d at 813; see also Nelson v. Schlener , d 288, 291 (Minn. 2015) (“[D]efects in subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived by the parties.

by Carver County Child Protection Services,” and that father pay mother “her total attorney’s fees that she has incurred to date.” At the outset, we must clarify that “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” see Nelson v. Schlener

Subject-matter jurisdiction “is a question of la w that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

See, e.g., Nelson v. Schlener , (“When the Legislature uses different words, we normally presume that those words have different meanings.”).

See Nelson v. Schlener , (explaining that when the legislat ure uses different words in a statute, we normally presume that those words have differe nt meanings); see also In re Stadsvold , -29 (Minn. 2 008) (“[D]istinctions in [stat utory] language in the same context are presumed to be intentional, an

Nelson v. Schlener , , 291 (Minn. 2015).

(“When the Legislature uses different words [in a statute], we normally presume that those words have different meanings.”); Hess, d at 424-25 (discussing the ambiguity of the phrase “right of way” and that use of such language in the context of a deed may indicate that the conveyance is

*485 Nelson v. Schlener , , 293 (Minn. 2015) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (stating that "words and phrases are construed according to the rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage[ ]").

This court’s role “is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

Nelson v. Schlener , , 291 (Minn. 2015).

See, e.g. , STRIB IV, LLC v. County of Hennepin , , 825 (Minn. 2016) ; State v. Schmid , , 822-24 (Minn. 2015) ; Nelson v. Schlener , , 293 (Minn. 2015) ; American Family Ins.

(“[T]he court of appeals is not a trier of fact.”).

Nelson v. Schlener , d 288, 291 (Minn. 2015); see also In re Welfare of Children of A.I.

The existence of su bject-matter jurisdiction “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

Subject-matter jurisdiction “is a question of law that we review de novo.”

The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Nelson v. Schlener , 91 (Minn. 2015) “Defects in subject- matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and cannot be waived by the parties.” Seehus, 5 d at 147.

14, 2004); see also Nelson v. Schlener , (stating that this court’s function “is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them” (quotation omitted)).

A statute is unambiguous if it “is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation.”

Maurer v. Maurer , 623 see also Nelson v. Schlener , (quoting this aspect of Sefkow); Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-Am.