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.

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
See Shire v. Rosemount , , 292 (Minn. 2016) ("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.").
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016) (considering dictionary definitions to determine plain meaning of a word).
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2018
The Echo Newspaper, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Roller-Dick v. Centracare Health Sys. 916 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2018
Funk v. O'Connor 916 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2018
Funk v. O'Connor 916 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2018
Shire v. Rosemount , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
Verhein v. Piper 917 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Verhein v. Piper 917 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (2016) ; Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
Laymon v. Minn. Premier Props., LLC 913 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2018
Laymon v. Minn. Premier Props., LLC 913 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2018
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
Davenia Porter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , , 292 (Minn. 2016).
Jeremiah John Palmquist, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“To determine the plain meaning of a word, [courts] often consider dictionary definitions.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
De Guardado v. Guardado Menjivar 901 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
De Guardado v. Guardado Menjivar 901 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., n.4 (Minn. 2016) (favoring a definition of a term, “voluntary,” that gave it a distinct meaning from two other terms, “ordered” and “assigned,” in the statute).
Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. 901 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. 901 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
For these reasons, appellant argues that this court should conclude that Minn. Stat. §§ 237.52 ; .70; and 403.11 are not “[statutes relating to taxation.” But “[w]hen 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., see State ex rel.
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Douglas v. Stillwater Area Public Schools 899 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Douglas v. Stillwater Area Public Schools 899 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In the absence of statutory definitions, we interpret the words in a statute according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., accord Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (2016).
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
See Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., (rejecting a proposed interpretation of a statute that would give it a meaning contrary to its plain meaning).
Superior Glass, Inc. v. Johnson 896 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Superior Glass, Inc. v. Johnson 896 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota Statutes section 268.035 does not define the word “primarily.” “To determine the plain meaning of a word, [appellate courts] often consider dictionary definitions.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
A16-1504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota Statutes section 268.035 does not define the word “primarily.” “To determine the plain meaning of a word, [appellate courts] often consider dictionary definitions.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc. 895 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc. 895 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the legislature.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether a plea is voluntary is determined by considering all relevant circumstances.” (quotations omitted)); Oldenburg v. State , (“A plea is voluntary when it is made without improper pressures or inducements.” (quotation omitted)); cf. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , (Anderson, J., dissenting) (“[A] plea decision may be ‘v oluntary’ even if a motivating influence is particularly strong, .
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
A statute’s words are interpreted according to their common everyday meaning, Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2016), which we often determine with the aid of dictionary definitions, see Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.