DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dulski, 361 N.W.2d 381.

17 citing documents.

  • In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
    Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth
  • State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    To apply retroactively, a statute’s language must contain “clear[] evidence of retroactive intent,” such as the use of the word “retroactive.” Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth
  • In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    § 645.21 (2008) (“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.”); Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, (stating that legislature’s mention of the word “retroactive” is clear evidence of intent that statute be applied retroactively).
  • U.S. Home Corp. v. Zimmerman Stucco & Plaster, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth
  • Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    The language of the statute must contain clear evidence of retroactive intent, “such as mention of the word ‘retroactive.’ ” Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, , 385 (Minn.1985); see also K.E.
  • Morton v. DYSTE 627 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, , 385 (Minn.1985).
  • Jacobson v. Board of Trustees 627 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    See, e.g., Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, Christensen v. Minneapolis Mun.
  • Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. 625 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    It is a “maxim of statutory construction that a statute is to be construed, if possible, so that no word, phrase, or sentence is superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, (citation omitted).
  • Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    As a general rule of statutory construction, “a statute is to be construed, if possible, so that no word, phrase, or sentence is superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, (citation omitted).
  • Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
    Such an interpretation is contrary to reason and the principle of statutory construction that “a statute is to be construed, if possible, so that no word, phrase, or sentence is superfluous, void, or insignificant.” See Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, (citation omitted).
  • In Re the Welfare of A.L.F. 579 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    See Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth, (“statute is to be construed, if possible, so that no word, phrase, or sentence is superfluous, void, or insignificant”).
  • Baertsch v. Minnesota Department of Revenue 518 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1994
    Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. Duluth
  • In Re Estate of Edhlund 444 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    In following that legislative mandate, the supreme court has held that before a statute will be afforded retroactive application, there must exist clear evidence that the legislature intended retroactive application “such as mention of the word ‘retroactive.’ ” Duluth Firemen’s
  • Amer. Fam. Ins. v. Metro. Transit Com'n 424 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • American Family Insurance v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 424 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    In following this legislative mandate, the supreme court has held that before a statute will be afforded retroactive application, there must exist clear evidence that the legislature intended retroactive application, “such as mention of the word ‘retroactive’.” Duluth Firemen’s
  • State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    The Traczyk decision reaffirms that “before a statute will be afforded retroactive application, there must be clear evidence that the legislature intended retroactive application.” , quoting Duluth Fireman’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth
  • State v. Traczyk 421 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1988
    Duluth Firemen’s Relief Ass’n v. City of Duluth