Cited by

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

122 citing documents.

Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 818 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2012
LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
"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 Welfare of J.B. 782 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2010
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 782 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2010
WEST BEND MUT. INS. v. Allstate Ins. 776 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2009
WEST BEND MUT. INS. v. Allstate Ins. 776 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2009
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(concluding that statute was ambiguous given its silence on the precise issue of whether a district court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to hold a hearing within a prescribed timeframe and competing interpretations).
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
“ ‘When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.’ ” (); see also Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive N. Ins.
In Re the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738 763 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
In Re the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738 763 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
(concluding that statute was ambiguous given its silence on the precise issue of whether a district court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to hold a hearing within a prescribed timeframe and competing interpretations).
Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. 763 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. 763 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Beardsley v. Garcia 753 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 2008
Beardsley v. Garcia 753 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 2008
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
at 361 ; , 208 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (holding that challenge to one-year order for protection was not moot even though it had expired); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187 , 188 n. 1, , 223 n. 1 (1973) (holding that challenge to one-year residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Reiter v. Kiffmeyer 721 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 2006
Reiter v. Kiffmeyer 721 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 2006
At oral argument, as providing a different rule of construction where the statute is silent on a particular matter.
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Murray v. Puls 690 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Murray v. Puls 690 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
Pietsch v. Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners 683 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2004
Pietsch v. Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners 683 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Rootes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 669 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Rootes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 669 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by