Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621.

167 citing documents.

Daniel Johnson (A23-0543), Relator v. Concrete Treatments, Inc., and Technology Insurance Company, and ... 7 N.W.3d 119 Minn. 2024
Sunshine Childcare center, LLC, et al v. Ramsey County, Jodi Harpstead, et al., County of Hennepin 7 N.W.3d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Andrew Henry Lieberman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Andrew Henry Lieberman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sunshine Childcare center, LLC, et al v. Ramsey County, Jodi Harpstead, et al., County of Hennepin 7 N.W.3d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo.”
Tenisha Williams v. Halimatou Diallo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tenisha Williams v. Halimatou Diallo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Kelly Schneider, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children's Health ... Minn. 2023
Kelly Schneider, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children's Health ... Minn. 2023
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc. (A22-0723) (A22-0724), Leland P. Schermer … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud v. Morris Royston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” d 738, 741 (Minn. 2011).
John Joseph Wawersich v. 2020 Ford F150, MN Plate FLC249, VIN 1FTFW1E40LKE95724 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Dean Olson v. Michael J. Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that “a landlord- tenant relationship involves the transfer of possession and occupation of a leased premises”); State v. Bowman, 279 N.W.
Yusur R. Said v. Old Home Management, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Audrey Maria Negri v. Chad Andrew Patton-Minder Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.” d 738, 741 (Minn. 2011).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child Minn. 2022
4(2); see also Coc chiarella v. Driggs , (finding that the word “occupying” had a variety of meanings depending on context in determining whether “occupying” was ambiguous).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. J. and B. J. J., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Kelly Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children’s Health Care, d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016).
James Zika v. Elder Care of Minnesota, Inc., et al., Naree Weaver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying de novo review in a guardianship context).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Mark Weets Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Asha Ahmed v. Nicollet County Health and Human Services, Jodi Harpstead - Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joseph Roach, et al v. Thomas Alinder, et al., Gary Heitkamp Construction, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Christopher Anthony Davis v. Mark Empting, Clay County Sheriff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpreta tion of a statute is a que stion of law that we review de novo.”
Allison Schaber v. Ramsey County, Minnesota State Retirement System, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Kera Quinn v. LMC NE Minneapolis Holdings, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted; alteration in original); see also Cocchiarella v. Driggs , d 621, 624, 627 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch v. Teamsters Local 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Marion O’Neill, et al v. Jim Schowalter, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
City of Hutchinson v. Mohammed Shahidullah, AKA Sam Ulland, RE: The Hazardous Building located at 430 Waters St. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs
Lighthouse Management Inc. v. Oberg Family Farms, et al., American Federal Bank, Gateway Building Systems, Inc., CITYWide Electric, … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Ella Hoene v. Matthew Arnold Kramar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Yao Yamtse v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Barbara Jacobson v. County of Dakota, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: Marna Susan Sutphen v. Jeffrey Carlyle Sutphen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. W. and F. N., Commissioner of … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The interpretation of a statute is a quest ion of law that we review de novo.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs
A18-2159 A18-2163 In the matter of the reissuance of an NPDES/SDS Minn. 2021
Katherine Marie Doornbos, vs, Kyle Justice Yaedke, St. Paul Federal Credit Union, et al., Nominal Defendants Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9 When we interpret statutes, we aim to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven Paul Jonsgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
are construed according to such special meaning or their definition[.]” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018); see also Cocchiarella v. Driggs , (“In accordance with our cannons of interpretation, we construe technical words and phrases according to their special meaning, a nd other words and phrases 6 according to their common and approved usage.” (quotations omitted)).
H. Joseph Slater, Kimberly Devine, et al v. Wabasha County Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Larry E. Reed v. The Highlands of Edinburgh Sixth Association, ACI Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Amos Mast, et al v. County of Fillmore, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul Stepnes v. Beth Trautman, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Whitney Hinrichs-Cady v. Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Administrative Order Issued to Moses Wazwaz, Individually, Allstate Construction, Inc., and A & … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Minnesota Sands, LLC, Minn. 2020
34 others.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs , –27 (Minn. 2016) (citing Restatement (Second) of Prop.: Landlord & Tenant § 1.2).
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Lee DeRosia Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that interpreting rules “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo” ); Cocchiarella v. Driggs , (holding that interpreting statutes “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo”).
In the Matter of Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim Minn. 2020
“When the language of a statute is clear, we apply the plain language of the statute and decline to explore its spirit or purpose.”
Minn. 2020