Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432.

235 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Martens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
One such canon is in pari materia, or the related-statutes canon, which “allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson, A21-1360, Supreme Court, September 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson, A21-1360, Supreme Court, September 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
When a phrase in a statute is undefined, we may look to dictionary definitions “to determine the common and ordinary meanings of these terms.”
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. Minn. 2023
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A statute is ambiguous only if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Del Zotto Products. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A21-0832 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
In interpreting statutes, we read the statute as a whole, and favor an interpretation that gives “each word or phrase in a statute a distinct, not an identical, meaning,”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Taquinia Kokela Douglas, Minn. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. J. F.-D., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(interpreting a statute); (rules of statutory interpretation are applied to interpret procedural rules).
Melissa Lynn Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re City of Cohasset’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Frontier … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: Sean Patrick Dempsey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“Also called the related-statutes canon, in pari materia allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.” (quotation omitted)).
Minn. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. J. and B. J. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 119, 122 (Minn. App. 2019).
Bunny Annette Byington, Minn. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. B. G., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
Courtney Ann Houck, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
See State v. Rick , d 478, 484 (Minn. 2013), d 432, 440–41 (Minn. 2017).
Minnesota Deer Farmers Association, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that in pari mate ria is extrinsic canon that applies only to ambiguous statutes).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A21-1527 A21-1528 A21-1530 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
In re the Estate of: Joann Roselia Gregory, aka JoAnn R. Gregory and aka JoAnn Gregory, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Don Lorge, Minn. 2022
State v. Thonesavanh , –38 (Minn. 2017).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Carvin Buzzell, Jr., Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A statute is ambiguous only if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (quotation omitted).
Johnsonville, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020)
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
In the Matter of V & J Farm, LLC and the Commissioner of North Fork Crow River Watershed … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
If the plain language of the statute is open to multiple reasonable interpretations, the statute is ambiguous and the court “may apply canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(considering legislative history only after finding the statute ambiguous); State v. Altepeter , (noting that an “illogical” result is only considered if the statute is ambiguous); (stating that the canon of in pari materia “applies only to ambiguous statutes”).
Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Fairmont Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
If, however, the language of the statute is ambiguous, meaning “it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,” we use the applicable canons of construction to ascertain the statute’s meaning and “resolve the ambiguity.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the Matter of the Eligibility of Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Daniel Bierbach, Chutich, J. Minn. 2021
State v. Thonesavanh , (explaining that, under the canon of in pari materia , two statutes with common purposes and subject matter may be construed together to resolve an ambiguity).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
If so, we “may apply canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity.”