Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota, 868 N.W.2d 36.

63 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ivan Contreras-Sanchez Minn. 2026
d 36, 41 (Minn. 2015); n.3 (Minn. 2007).
Joel Armen Underwood, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
Joel Armen Underwood, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
(citing Staab v. Diocese of St.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Clifford Robert Letourneau, III, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Clifford Robert Letourneau, III, Appellant Minn. 2025
“Statutory language is ambiguous only if, as applied to the facts of the particular case, it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Minn. 2025
“Statutory language is ambiguous only if, as applied to the facts of the particular case, it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino, Appellant Minn. 2025
“Statutory language is ambiguous only if, as applied to the facts of the particular case, it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (citing Staab v. Diocese of St.
Minn. 2024
He argues that, in light of this court’s exposition on the plain meaning of “sentence” –41 (Minn. 2015), the August 26, 2021, order was a “sentence” because it ostensibly imposed a different punishment than the June 24, 2019 , sentencing order.
Keegan James Rich Brouillette, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And “[o]ur rules of statutory interpretation forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. J. and B. J. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Abas Ibrahim Mohamed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Amy Luann Seelye, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2021
the court of appeals held that Johnston cannot seek relief under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. D. S., Commissioner of Human Services, Legal … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Erik Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
a guilty plea is not recorded because there is, by definition, no adjudication of guilt.” n.2 (Minn. 2015) (discussing a statutory stay of adjudication for first-time drug offenders).
John Noel McCormick, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Amy Jeanne Flaherty, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Dupey v. State , (“W hen an offender receives a stay of adjudication under Minn. Stat. § 152.18, subd.
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dupey v. State , , 39 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dupey v. State , , 39 (Minn. 2015).
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Dupey v. State , , 40 (Minn. 2015).
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Dupey v. State , , 40 (Minn. 2015) ; *919 Lunzer v. State , , 822 (Minn. App. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2.D.106 (2016); (concluding that a stay of adjudication under Minn. Stat. § 152.18, subd.
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larson 895 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larson 895 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Alec Evert Adolfson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Alec Evert Adolfson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that a stay of adjudication under Minn. Stat. § 152.18, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
And the “first step” in interpreting a statute or ordinance “is to examine the language of the statute to determine if it is ambiguous.”
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]f the statutory language is unambiguous, [the court] must enforce the plain meaning of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.”); (discussing statutory interpretation).
Mohamed Abdule Ahmed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mohamed Abdule Ahmed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1, there is no ‘judgment of conviction or sentence.’” Lunzer, d at 822 (d 36, 39-41 (Minn. 2015)).
Crystal Louise Breezee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016