Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 899 N.W.2d 120.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Melissa Madelyne Zielinski Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Madelyne Zielinski Minn. 2026
See, –24 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A24-1949 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sean Michael Wocelka v. State of Minnesota 9 N.W.3d 390 Minn. 2024
Sean Michael Wocelka v. State of Minnesota 9 N.W.3d 390 Minn. 2024
(stating that “[a]lthough it is odd, perhaps even anomalous, for the Legislature to have included less-serious crimes as prior impaired-driving convictions, but not Smith’s [more serious] 2005 offense, anomalous results, even if they are the product of inadvertence, do not allow us to ignore the p
Ryan Chrz, Minn. 2023
10 statute is uncommonly detailed and specific.” –24 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ryan Leroy Smith, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Jill Melisa Sinda, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating “presumption th at an omission in a statute is by deli berate choice, not inadvertence ” (quotation omitted)); (“We cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted.”).
A18-1655 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(expression of one thing is exclusion of the other); (a statute should be interpreted whenever possible to give effect to all of its provisions).
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
at 616-17 ; see also State v. Smith , , 125 (Minn. 2017) (noting the absurdity canon applies only in the " 'exceedingly rare case' " (quoting Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr.
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Smith , , 125 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
617 (Minn. 1993) (applying the absurdity doctrine where the plain meaning of the statute at issue simultaneously rendered a large part of the statute unconstitutional and inoperative); see also State v. Smith , , 125 (Minn. 2017) (noting that the absurdity canon applies in only "exceedingly rare" cases).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Whether a prior conviction statutorily qualifies as a prior impaired-driving conviction for purposes of enhancement is a “legal question.” (concluding that South Dakot a convictions could be used for enhancement purposes).
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Smith , , 125 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Smith , , 125 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Smith , , 122 (Minn. 2017).
Halvorson v. B&F Fastener Supply 901 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2017
Halvorson v. B&F Fastener Supply 901 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2017
(discussing the single instance in which we applied the absurdity canon, which allows a court “to override the plain and unambiguous language of a statute” in the rare instance when the result would be so absurd that it would “utterly depart from” the statute’s purpose (citations omitted) (internal q