Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dawn Oliver Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dawn Oliver Minn. 2025
Attempted first-degree assault-harm, then, charged under the separate attempt statute, requires (1) the specific intent to commit to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language” () (internal quotation marks omitted)).
A23-0893 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The “related-statutes canon” of statutory construction, which deals with statutes that are “in pari materia, is an extrinsic canon that applies only to ambiguous statutes.” (emphasis added) ().
Minn. 2022
The primary goal of statutory interpretation “is to 6 The canon of in pari materia “allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguou s statutory language.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
A second canon, in pari materia, “allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of amb iguous statutory language.”
John Moore, Minn. 2021
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n offender sentenced under this pro vision is eligible for probation, 9 “‘The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.’” Leathers, d at 611 ().
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
Thonesavanh , d at 437 ; see also State v. Lucas , , 94 (Minn. 1999) ("Because neither statute is ambiguously worded, we have no need to use the doctrine of in pari materia in this instance.").
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 437 (quoting State v. Lucas , , 94 (Minn. 1999) ).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
In so reasoning, the court of appeals seems to have employed in pari materia—the related-statutes canon —which “allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory 8 language.”
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
(“Because neither statute is ambiguously worded, we have no need to use the doctrine of in pari materia in this instance.”).
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But the in pari merteria doctrine is a tool for interpreting ambiguous statutory language, and we conclude that section 56.01(a) is unambiguous.
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that rule of lenity does not apply if challenged statute is unambiguous); (stating that doctrine of in pari materia is not used absent statutory ambiguity).
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory 13 language.”6 see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012) (providing that “[w]hen the words of a law are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering .
Daniel Michael Lieser v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Michael Lieser v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the 6 meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Star Tribune Media Co. 849 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Star Tribune Media Co. 849 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Hennepin, (when words of statute are not explicit, we may look to other statutes upon the same, or similar subjects); (stating that “[t]he doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
Justice Lillehaug appears to support his interpretation by application of the canon of in pari mate-ria, which “ ‘allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the mean *442 ing of ambiguous statutory language.’” (); , 816 n. 3 (Minn.2004) (describing the canon of in pari materia).
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
(“The doctrine of in pan materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, (explaining the doctrine of in pari materia); (“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).
State v. Koperski 611 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Koperski 611 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2000