Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Boecker, 893 N.W.2d 348.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Devon Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Devon Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Thomas Gabor Gratzer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. 2024
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous,” and “words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2022).
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
Our relatively longstanding position has been that “[t]he plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is 6 unambiguous.”
Drake Snell v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, ... 6 N.W.3d 458 Minn. 2024
Drake Snell v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, ... 6 N.W.3d 458 Minn. 2024
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”
State of Minnesota v. April Jean Worrall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. April Jean Worrall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”
In the Matter of: Casey McDougall, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lindsay Allyn Yates Plumer v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lindsay Allyn Yates Plumer v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Cities Management, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2023
Cities Management, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2023
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”
Todd Deon Rolack, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But “[a] defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if it is ‘necessary to correct a manifest injustice.’” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
See State v. Boecker , (“We may read multiple parts of a statute together to determine whether a statute is ambiguous.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”
Christopher Lee Haugen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statut e is unambiguous.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Christopher Paul Mattson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 (stating that rules governing statutory interpretation also apply to the interpretation of ordinances) , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The pl ain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.” State v. Boecker
Pamela Maslowski, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of [a] statute is unambiguous.”).
Bergman v. Caulk 931 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bergman v. Caulk 931 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017).
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
State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017) ("The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.").
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“We interpret a statute as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts, and where possible, no word, phrase, or sentence will be held superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For example, 354 (Minn. 2017), the supreme court concluded that a 1998 CVO convi ction qualified for purposes of enhancement, despite section 169A.24 referring to previous felony convictions under “Minnesota Statutes 2006.” The district court did not ab use its discretion by declining to instruct the jury t o find whet
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A defendant has the “burden of showing his plea was invalid.” (quotation omitted).
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
In other words, we do not view the statute's words and provisions in isolation, State v. Gaiovnik , , 647 (Minn. 2011), but instead interpret the statute as a whole, so that nothing is superfluous, State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017).
Sec. Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 916 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2018
Sec. Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 916 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2018
See State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017) ("The plain language of the statute controls when the meaning of the statute is unambiguous.").
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Distinguished State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
It argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in State v. Boecker , permits us to consider these statements as we interpret the plain language of the guidelines.
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
See State v. Boecker , , 351 (Minn. 2017) ("We interpret a statute as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts, and where possible, no word, phrase, or sentence will be held superfluous, void, or insignificant."