Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski, 860 N.W.2d 362.

23 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: L. A. B. and C. R. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: L. A. B. and C. R. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Mother uses “authority” to refer to what Minnesota Statutes section 260C.101, subdivisions 1 and 2 call the juvenile court’s “original and exclusive jurisdiction.” Because the governing statute refers to the juvenile court’s “original and exclusive jurisdiction,” we refer to the juvenile court’s “jurisdiction.” 11 (stating that we cannot add words to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted).
Resolution Non-Renewing Probationary Teaching Contract. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that appellate courts “cannot add words to a statute that the Legislature intentionally or inadvertently left out” (quotation omitted)).
Melissa Lynn Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Because t (explaining that appellate courts “cannot add words to a statute that the Legislature intentionally or inadvertently left out” (quotation omitted)).
A20-1351 Minn. 2021
(declining to “superimpose” limiting language onto a statute).
Whitney Hinrichs-Cady, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]e cannot add words to a statute that th e Legislature intentionally or inadvertently left out.” (quotation omitted).
Jessica Fisher, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dev., (stating that this court lacks authority to apply exceptions omitted from unemployment statutes); Great River Energy v. Swedzinski , (stating that c ourts do not add words to a statute).
A17-0903 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And this court will not “add words to a statute that [the Legislature] intentiona lly or inadvertently left out.” (M inn.
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “cannot add words to a statute that the Legislature intentionally or inadvertently left out.” (quotation omitted); see also 328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Props.
Steven Duane Auers, personally, and as trustee for the next of kin of Karen Auers v. Progressive Direct … 878 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Duane Auers, personally, and as trustee for the next of kin of Karen Auers v. Progressive Direct … 878 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
793 (Minn. 2011) (noting that appellate courts are limited to interpreting the plain language of the statute and that policy arguments are properly directed to the legislature); (ruling that reviewing court may not rely on policy arguments to insert language into an otherwise plain-and-unambiguous statute).
State of Minnesota v. S. A. M. 877 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. S. A. M. 877 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-68 (Minn. 2015) (ruling that reviewing court may not rely on policy arguments to insert language into an otherwise plain-and-unambiguous statute).
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015