Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, R…, 875 N.W.2d 289.

89 citing documents.

Sibley Plaza Limited Partners, LP, et al v. MSP Tobacco and Vapor, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016).
Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association v. Susan Sween, as Trustee of the George H. Deziel Revocable Trust, United Power … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In interpreting a statute, it is appropriate to “give effect to each word and phrase.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Patrick A Lease, et al v. Mankato Township, Blue Earth County Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“To determine the plain meaning of a word, we often consider dictionary definitions.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
8 Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Minn. 2025
9 Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Erin Lindsay v. Minneapolis Public School District (SSD1), Self-Insured, Relator Minn. 2025
Erin Lindsay v. Minneapolis Public School District (SSD1), Self-Insured, Relator Minn. 2025
We previously considered the meaning of the word “voluntary” as used in section 176.021, subdivision 9, concluding that it means “[d]one or undertaken of one’s own free will or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., (alteration in original) (citation 16 omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Randy Dale Sixta v. Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention” of the Legislative Branch and we must “interpret words employed in a statute according to their plain meaning.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Tenisha Williams v. Halimatou Diallo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tenisha Williams v. Halimatou Diallo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When a word or phrase has a plain meaning, [appellate courts] presume that the plain meaning is consistent with legislative intent and engage in no further statutory construction.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: Sandee Goldsmith Becker, n/k/a Sandee Scroggs Goldsmith v. Leon L. Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Sandee Goldsmith Becker, n/k/a Sandee Scroggs Goldsmith v. Leon L. Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a word or phrase has a plain meaning, [appellate courts] presume that the plain meaning is consistent with legislative intent and engage in no further statutory construction.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Andrew Joseph Haman v. Seth Tyberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Andrew Joseph Haman v. Seth Tyberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a word or phrase has a plain meaning, we presume that the plain meaning is consistent with legislative intent and engage in no further statutory construction.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016).
In the Matter of Keystone Township, et al v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We may glean that usage from dictionary definitions, Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016), but we also consider how context affects a term’s meaning
Deangelo Profit, Minn. 2023
“To determine the plain meaning of a word, we often consider dictionary definitions.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Ryan Chrz, Minn. 2023
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016); see also ILHC of Eagan, d 412, 419 (Minn. 2005) (“The touchstone for statutory interpretation is the plain meaning of a statute’s language.”).
International Fluid Power, Inc. v. Holb-Gunther, LLC, d/b/a Sea -Legs Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Minn. 2022
at 436; see also Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., (using dictionary definitions to determine the plain meaning of a provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act).
Minn. 2022
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Dennis Sershen, Minn. 2022
3 Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020); Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
In the Matter of V & J Farm, LLC and the Commissioner of North Fork Crow River Watershed … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16; see also Shire v. Rosemount , Inc.
Aaron J. Harkins, Minn. 2022
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Steven Lee Mittelstaedt, et al., Minn. 2022
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Julian M. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Semicolons are “most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would.” The Chicago Manual of Style § 6.56 (17th ed. 2017); see Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., (using Chicago Manual to interpret grammar of a statute).
Robert Webb, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We interpret words employed in a statute according to their plain meaning.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Eric John Blehr v. Jacki Sue Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When a word or a phrase has a plain meaning, we presume that the pla in meaning is consistent with legislative intent and engage in no further statutory construction.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Minn. 2020
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
In re the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Minn. 2019
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
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
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 297 (Minn. 2016).
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
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016) ; see also City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs.
Joel S. Rabbe, et al v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont, et al., Allen Kahler, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 6 45.08(1) (2018); Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Lewison v. Hutchinson 929 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lewison v. Hutchinson 929 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
Shelley Lynn Yocom v. RAM Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016).
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (2018) ; see Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
See Minn. Stat § 645.08(1) (2018) ; Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
Andrew Carufel, et al v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, et al., Seven, Inc., d/b/a Smart Start, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the absence of statutory definitions, we interpret the words in a statute “according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. 645.08(1) (2016); see also Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., (“We have considered dictionary definitions as a helpful tool in determining plain and ordinary meaning.”).