Cited by

the supreme court interpreted the statutory definition of “residential tenant” in a case with facts that were similar but not identical to the facts of this case.

The order included a memorandum that stated in pertinent part: Even though [tenant] did not take physical occupancy of the property, the case of [], holds that a person is a residential tenant even if they have “present legal right of occupancy” of the property.

The first reason is that “[w]hen the language of a statute is clear, we apply the plain language of the statute .”

4 “The interpretation of a [federal] statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”

see also N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro.

5 “The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo.”

(instructing that we “consider[] the provision at issue in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations” (quotation omitted)).

d 483, 487 (Minn. 2024); -08 (Minn. App. 2015) (remanding because the district court “did not mention” appellant’s claim for damages in the order on appeal despite no argument or conclusion that damages were unavailable or appellant’s failure to urge the court to address the claim), rev’d on other grounds

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

d 621, 625 (Minn. 2016).

(“When the language of a statute is clear, we apply the plain language of the statute and decline to explore its spirit or purpose.”).

“The object of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature.”

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo.”

And “[t]he interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” see also Hous.

(footnotes omitted); (discussing what it means to “occupy” a residence and holding that an individual who was not physically present in an apartment could still bring an unlawful removal or exclusion petition).

We interpret words and phrases “according to their common and approved usage,” and construe a statute “to give effect to all of its provisions ,” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (20 22).

An appellate court must first “examine the statutory language to determine whether the words of the law are clear and free from all ambiguity.” (quotation omitted).