Cited by

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

235 citing documents.

Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 925 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Thonesavanh , , 437 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Thonesavanh , , 435 (Minn. 2017).
Vill. Lofts At St. Anthony Falls Ass'n v. Hous. Partners Iii-Lofts LLC 924 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Vill. Lofts At St. Anthony Falls Ass'n v. Hous. Partners Iii-Lofts LLC 924 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Thonesavanh , , 435 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
Noggle was decided before State v. Thonesavanh , in which we made clear that the rule of lenity is applied only as a last resort.
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Thonesavanh , , 435 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Gosewisch 921 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A18-1143 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
after the other canons of construction have been exhausted and what remains is a grievously ambiguous statute.”
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*561 Hanson , d at 7 n.2 ; see also State v. Thonesavanh , , 440 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming that "the rule of lenity applies only after the other canons of construction have been exhausted and what remains is a grievously ambiguous statute").
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh , , 436 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Decker 916 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 2018
State v. Decker 916 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh , , 436 (Minn. 2017).
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh , , 440 (Minn. 2017) ("[T]he overwhelming weight of authority is that the rule of lenity is a canon of last resort, applicable only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute."
Verhein v. Piper 917 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue 914 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 2018
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue 914 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh , , 436 n.2 (Minn. 2017) (citing The Chicago Manual of Style ¶ 5.96 (16th ed. 2010) ).
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh , , 435 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thonesavanh , , 435 (Minn. 2017).
Gist v. Atlas Staffing, Inc. 910 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2018
Gist v. Atlas Staffing, Inc. 910 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2018
9 See *33 State v. Thonesavanh , , 437 (Minn. 2017) (stating that in pari materia "is an extrinsic canon that applies only to ambiguous statutes").
A17-1096 Minn. 2018
9 (stating that in pari materia “is an extrinsic canon that applies only to ambiguous statutes”).
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Thonesavanh , , 435 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
See State v. Thonesavanh , , 436, 436 n.2 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
The canon against surplusage, an intrinsic canon, “favors giving each word or phrase in a statute a distinct, not an identical, meaning.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kirk Alan Fugelseth Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”