Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Overweg, 922 N.W.2d 179.

30 citing documents.

A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4(c), at 865; (“If a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” (quotation omitted)).
Minn. 2024
n.4 (Minn. 2023) (explaining that extrinsic canons are only applied to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language); n.3 ( Minn. 2019) (same); (explaining that when the language of a provision in the Guidelines is “clear and unambiguous,” the court will apply the plain language even if the comment to the Guidelines provision suggests a different outcome).
Special Education Complaint 23-157C on behalf of A. M. A. from Rochester 0535-01. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Korwin Lucio Balsley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Korwin Lucio Balsley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We are not persuaded otherwis e by the state’s argument that State v. Overweg , requires a different outcome.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, a district court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by la w.” A sentence is unauthorized if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.” d 179, 182 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The meaning of a statutory phrase is dependent upon context.” d 179, 183 (Minn. 2019).
Thomas Hecker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Petition of Valet Living for a Declaration that Interpretation Titled Corridor Trash Collection … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This is simply not the case.” Indeed, a statute is ambiguous “only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 179, 182 -83 (Minn. 2019).
Brett Mallberg, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The first step in statutory interpreta tion is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Overweg , d 179, 183 (Min n. 2019) (explaining that court s apply a n unambiguous statute’s plain meaning).
Sokkhan Ka, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cheryl L. Stinski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Overweg , -83 (Minn. 2019).
In the Matter of the Lindmark Endowment for Corporate-Business Ethics Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Overweg , (concluding that the phrase “has previously been convicted” is not ambiguous).
Princeton Auto Center Inc. DLR 22118, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If a statute is unambiguo us, we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” (quotation omitted).
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
651 (Minn. 2012) (addressing an argument asserting that the plain language of a statute leads to an unfair or unusual result as an absurdity argument); see also State v. Overweg , , 184-85 (Minn. 2019) (collecting cases and noting our frequent rejection of the absurdity doctrine even where the interpretation of a statute leads to "anomalous results").
Richard Duncan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’s plain mean ing.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Defatte 928 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2019
State v. Defatte 928 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg , , 182-83 (Minn. 2019).
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Overweg , , 183 (Minn. 2019).
Berkeley Read Lewis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Overweg , , 182–83 (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or ap plicable statutes.” (quotation omitted).