Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206.

122 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 Lastly, we conclude that the district court’s decision is consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is “to provide speedy, effective relief to victims of domestic abuse.” (describing the Act as a “remedy for victims of abuse”).
William Christopher Edrington, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 206, 210 (Minn. 2001).
In the Matter of the Correction Orders Issued to the Wealshire of Bloomington Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Correction Orders Issued to the Wealshire of Bloomington Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0893 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dennis J. Daulton, trustee for the next of kin of Brady Joel Daulton v. TMS Treatment Center, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dennis J. Daulton, trustee for the next of kin of Brady Joel Daulton v. TMS Treatment Center, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022); Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., (“In reading the statute, it is necessary to consider not only the bare meaning of the word or phrase, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” (quotation omitted)); (explaining that when statutory language is silent, courts consider other factors to interpret its meaning, including the statute’s purpose).
In re the Matter of: E. M. B., DOB February 14, 2014, Sharo’n Lily Isabella Mathison, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Comm ’r of Revenue , - 83 (Minn. 2005)
In re the Custody of K.S. A. and G. M. A., Catherine Easter, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When th e language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A. The purpose of the Domestic Abuse Act is “to provide speedy, effective relief to victims of domestic abuse.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.” Burkstrand v. Burkstrand
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
In re the Matter of Kenneth Alan Hovland, OBO Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In support of his argument, Jazdzewski cites the supreme court’s 2001 decision in Burkstrand v. Burkstrand
Caitlyn Elizabeth Stenerson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see Henderson, 562 U.S. at 436, 131 U.S. at 1203 (explaining that, when d etermining whether a procedure or rule is jurisdictional, courts consider whether there is any clear indication that the legislature intended the rule 12 to be jurisdictional).
Cheryl L. Stinski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is 7 assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
In Re the Custody of: N.S.V., L.J.V., E.T.V., Terri Ann Bischoff, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When the language of a statute 5 is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
State v. Nicholas 924 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Nicholas 924 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*691 Burkstrand v. Burkstrand , , 210 (Minn. 2001).
In the Matter: Nita Maria Hicks, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo).
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
is a fundamental difference between finding that a deadline is mandatory and concluding that it operates to take away the district court’s authority to act”); (holding that “60-day time limit for hearing new trial [or] amended findings motions is a procedural tool and does not divest the district court of jurisdiction”); (holding that district court’s failure to hold hearing within statutory' timé frame did not divest it of subject .matter jurisdiction over petition seeking order for protection)
Amanda Stokes-Ciochetto, Paul Brian Ciochetto and o/b/o Minor Children v. Devin James Eskeli Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Amanda Stokes-Ciochetto, Paul Brian Ciochetto and o/b/o Minor Children v. Devin James Eskeli Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of Temphy Thompson�s Verified Application for Compensation from the Contractor Recovery Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of Temphy Thompson�s Verified Application for Compensation from the Contractor Recovery Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin 886 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin 886 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
-85 (Minn.2015); see also Allan, d at 33 (“When the language of a statute is plain'and unambiguous, it is assumed‘to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”) ().
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 865 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2015
Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 865 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2015
8 assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
25, 2003), but we review statutory interpretation de novo, d 206, 209 (Minn. 2001).
Marian v. Swanson v. Terrence K. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marian v. Swanson v. Terrence K. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
9 (stating that “[w]hen interpreting the statutes, it is our role to rely on what the Legislature intended over what may appear to be supported by public policy”).
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
(noting that the OFP statute “was enacted as one means to protect [domestic abuse] victims”); see also Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 361 , 117 S.Ct.