Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206.
-
State v. McCoy
668 N.W.2d 425
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(examining legislative history to ascertain intent from legislative silence); (considering legislative history to discern intent from legislative silence), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1997).
- In Re Welfare of BKP 662 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Neu v. Pollard 662 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Neu v. Pollard
662 N.W.2d 913
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it * * * must be given effect.”
- In Re Welfare of BKP 662 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2002
- Marriage of Antone v. Antone 645 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2002
- D.M.S. v. Barber 645 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2002
- Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
- Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
- D.M.S. v. Barber 645 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2002
-
Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co.
645 N.W.2d 108
Minn. 2002
Whetstone v. Hossfeld Mfg.
- Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
Rutz v. Rutz
644 N.W.2d 489
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
<fWhen the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it * * * must be given effect.”
- State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Lueth v. City of Glencoe 639 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Lueth v. City of Glencoe 639 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
- Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
- State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
-
State v. Grossman
636 N.W.2d 545
Minn. 2001
Kersten v. Minnesota Mut.