Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Defatte, 928 N.W.2d 338.

40 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When interpreting a statute’s plain language, “[s]tatutory words and phrases must be construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” (quotation omitted).
In RE: The Matter of the Irrevocable Trust of Myron E. Childs, dated November 2, 2000 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In RE: The Matter of the Irrevocable Trust of Myron E. Childs, dated November 2, 2000 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
Thomas Gabor Gratzer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When interpreting the plain language of a statute, “[s]tatutory words and phrases must be construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” State v. Defatte , (quotation omitted).
Todd Robert Reihs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vincent Bruns Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vincent Bruns Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jason Turner Johnson 8 N.W.3d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jason Turner Johnson 8 N.W.3d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts “review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Borgquist 7 N.W.3d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Borgquist 7 N.W.3d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 626.15(a)(2022) This court will “review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: W. S. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Vaundell Duwayne Kingbird, Minn. 2022
A21-0832 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts “review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If a statute does not define a phrase, that phrase is given “its plain and ordinary meaning.” (quotation omitted).