Cited by

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

165 citing documents.

Donald L. Bryant, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. 2019
Peace encourages us to consider public policy reasons supporting her position that these negotiated discounts are collateral sources, including the intent of the collateral- source statute to eliminate some double recoveries, but when the plain language of the statutory exception is clear we “decline to explore its spirit or purpose.”
In the Matter of the Petitions of The Auto Club Group, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James M. Erickson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Esther Schmalz and the Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services, Renville County … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When interpreting a statute, “we construe technical words and phrases according to [their] special meaning and other words and phrases according to their common and ap proved usage.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs , 24 (Minn. 2016) (alteration in original) (quotations omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018).
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd 932 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Olson v. Lesch 931 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Olson v. Lesch 931 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
, A18-1302 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson 929 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2019
Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson 929 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2019
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
Joel S. Rabbe, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that when a word has a variety of meanings, we examine the context in which the word appears).
Lawrence Paul St. Marie, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Cilek v. Office of the Minn. Sec'y of State 927 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cilek v. Office of the Minn. Sec'y of State 927 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016) ; Davies v. W. Publ'g Co. , , 841 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that district court's decision following application of a statute to undisputed facts is not binding on this court), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).
In re Bradley Stephen Boone for a Change Name 924 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Bradley Stephen Boone for a Change Name 924 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016) ; see also Swenson v. Nickaboine , , 741 (Minn. 2011).
Anderson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696 924 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Followed Anderson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696 924 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christie v. Estate of Christie , , 838 n.5 (Minn. 2018) ; Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016) ; Harlow v. State, Dep't of Human Servs.
Green v. Kellen 921 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Green v. Kellen 921 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Dennis D. Dickinson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Amy Sue Denzer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp. 919 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
Community First Bank, a Wisconsin banking corporation, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
J. Paul Robinson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of: HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Echo Newspaper, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
3 “The object of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016) (statutory interpretation); Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato , , 768 (Minn. 2015) (interpretation of procedural rules).
Funk v. O'Connor 916 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2018
Funk v. O'Connor 916 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
Robert F. Goerdt, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cara Zimmer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court construes “technical words and phrases ‘according to [their] special meaning’ and other words and phrases according to their ‘common and approved usage.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2014)).
Dean Murray, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 912 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 912 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
Ellis v. Doe 915 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ellis v. Doe 915 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cocchiarella v. Driggs , , 624 (Minn. 2016).