Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166.

28 citing documents.

John Lee Edmondson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And “we have long held that it is impermissible to add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Paramedics are not among the listed professionals, and it is impermissible for courts “to add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Wilford Fields, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And “it is impermissible to add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kissie Marie Haynes Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Short Call Substitute Teaching License Application of Jeronimo Yanez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Andrew Crisman, et al v. Hillman Township, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Hensel , (“[I]t is impermissible to add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute .” (quotation omitted) ).
Johnsonville, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. City of Buffalo, a Minnesota municipal corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The rationale for allowing an overbreadth challenge, even when a statute is constitutional as applied in a particular circumstance, is that enforcement of an overbroad law chills protected speech, which ‘inhibit[s] the free exchange of ideas.’” State v. Hensel , (Minn. 7 non-commercial sign.
Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
To prevail on an overbreadth claim, a challenger “must establish that ‘a substantial number of [a statute’s] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010)).
Minn. 2020
See State v. Hensel , d 166, 170 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Casillas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The rationale for allowing an overbreadth challenge, even when a statute is constitutional as applied in a particular circumstance, is that enforcement o f an overbroad law chills protected speech, which inhibits the free exchange of ideas.” d 166, 170 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Elliot Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Jorgenson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-48 (Minn. 2019); -76 (Minn. 2017) (providing the same general framework).
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. 929 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2019
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. 929 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2019
State v. Hensel , , 171 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
1(d) ; see State v. Hensel , , 178 (Minn. 2017) ("[I]t is impermissible to add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute."
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Hensel , , 178 (Minn. 2017) ("[W]e have long held that it is impermissible to add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute."
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re A.J.B. 910 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hensel , , 170 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
*351 State v. Hensel , , 170 (Minn. 2017) ; Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr.
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cf. State v. Hensel , -81 (Minn. 2017) (holdi ng that Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd.
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
2017 WL 4052301, at *11 (Minn. Sept.