Cited by

that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect” (emphasis added)); (stating that use of the disjunctive “or” demonstrates the legislature intended to require only one of the multiple grounds listed); see also Dunham, d at 567 (explaining that harassment requires “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” (emphasis added)).

17a(a)(1) (stating that a “substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others” may be shown by “a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care as a result of impairment” (emphasis added)); (explaining that, “[h]ad the [legislature’s] objective [in enacting a statute] been to require only one of .

17a(a)(1) (stating that a “substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others” may be demonstrated by “a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care as a result of impairment” (emphasis added)); (providing that the when the disjunctive “or” is used, the legislature’s objective is to require only one of the multiple grounds listed).

To determine the legislature’s intent, we look to the plain 2 In 2019, the legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 590.11 - 33 (Minn. 2017), in a way that removed the “a court of this state” statutory language from Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd.

establishes a framework for compensating individuals who have served time in prison after a wrongful conviction.”

see Minn. Stat. § 645.20 (2022); Back v. State , (invalidating the statute when severance was not possible with the consequence that we proceed as if the statute had never been enacted at all).

(recognizing that “[a] true drafti ng error, often called a scrivener’s error, is defined as a technical error, such as transposing characters or omitting an obviously needed word that can be rectified without serious doubt about the correct reading” (quotations omitted)); see also State ex rel.

3 But 2 days later, –30 (Minn. 2017), we held that the definition of exoneration on which Kingbird relied was unconstitutional.

9 See also Back v. State , (interpreting “and” as conjunctive); (same), superseded by statute, Act of May 13, 2014, ch. 242, § 3, 2014 Minn. Laws 804, 804 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 609.375 (2020)); Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep.

1 Yang finally argues that the supreme court’s violated his equal protection rights by preventing him from claiming he was exonerated under an older definition of that term.

(recognizing that “[a] true drafting e rror, often called a scrivener’s error, is defined as a technical error, such as transposing characters or omitting an obviously needed word that can be rectified without serious doubt about the correct reading” (quotations omitted)); see 11 also State ex

“An individual can file a claim for compensation under MIERA only if he or she first petitions a court for and receives an order certifying that he or she is eligible for compensation based on exoneration under Minn. Stat. § 590.11.” Buhl v. State , see Minn. Stat. § 590.11.; ( stating that the “threshold determination under the exoneration-compensation statute is whether an individual has been ‘ exonerated’”).

But the supreme court had severed subdivision 1(1)(i) as unconstitutional in Back v. State

31 (Minn. 2017) (severing Minn. Stat. § 590.11 , subd.

Back v. State , , 28 (Minn. 2017).

See generally Back v. State , , 31 (Minn. 2017) (severing of as little as possible of an unconstitutional law).

Minn. Stat. §§ 611.362-.368 (2016)