Cited by

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

165 citing documents.

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 v. Ramsey County, Jodi Harpstead, ... 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
A22-0724 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Dean Olson, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Audrey Maria Negri, Appellant, 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, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016).
James Zika, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying de novo review in a guardianship context).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Asha Ahmed, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Christopher Anthony Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpreta tion of a statute is a que stion of law that we review de novo.”
Allison Schaber, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Kera Quinn, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Almir Puce, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
City of Hutchinson, Respondent, 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., Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Yao Yamtse, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Barbara Jacobson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. W. and F. N., Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The interpretation of a statute is a quest ion of law that we review de novo.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs
A18-2095 A18-2159 A18-2163 Minn. 2021
Katherine Marie Doornbos, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9 When we interpret statutes, we aim to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Larry E. Reed, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Amos Mast, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Whitney Hinrichs-Cady, Appellant, 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
Tyler Halva, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by