Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota, ex rel. Demetris L. Duncan v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections, 887 N.W.2d 271.

27 citing documents.

Larry E. Reed, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
John Kotowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 271, 278 (Minn. 2016).
Minn. 2021
Duncan v. Roy , n.4 (Minn. 2016) (applying Schnagl’s holding to a factually similar case).
State of Minnesota ex rel. Gerald Browneagle, Appellant, vs. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
n.1 (Minn. 2016) (“Functionally, conditional release is identical to supervised release.”).
Michael D. Perseke, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(upholding DOC’s 2012 recalculation of a conditional-release term impos ed under Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Andrew Bearden Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State ex rel Duncan v. R oy, n.1 (Minn. 2016) (“Functionally, conditional release is identical to supervised release.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.05, subd.
In the Matter of the Petitions of The Auto Club Group, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Duncan v. Roy , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, Minn. 2019
Duncan v. Roy , n.1 (Minn. 2016 ) (“Functionally, conditional release is identical to supervised release.”).
Heilman v. Courtney 926 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2019
Heilman v. Courtney 926 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2019
Robert F. Goerdt, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Duncan v. Roy , (quotation omitted).
State ex rel. Huseby v. Roy 903 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State ex rel. Huseby v. Roy 903 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(emphasis added); (Minn.App.
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
Mahmoud Mahdy Musta Soltan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“When legislative intent is clear from the statute’ s plain and unambiguous language, we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory interpretation.” (quotation omitted)).
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
(providing that appellate courts interpret a statute according to its plain meaning and do not resort to other statutory-interpretation principles when legislative intent is clear from the statute’s unambiguous language); Haywood, d at 491 (stating that the courts are only to apply the statu
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Joshua Sather, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Duncan v. Roy , –77 (Minn. 2016); see generally Minn. Stat. § 243.05 (2016) ( describing commissioner’s powers); Minn. Stat. § 244.05, subd.
Nelson v. State 896 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nelson v. State 896 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Arturo Martinez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 895 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 895 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2017