Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic Security, 386 N.W.2d 702.

274 citing documents.

State v. Furman 609 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this court must “give effect to the statute’s plain meaning.”
Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
Metro Milwaukee Auto Auction v. Coulson 604 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Metro Milwaukee Auto Auction v. Coulson 604 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sec., (stating that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, court may not attempt to construe or interpret it, but must “give effect to the statute’s plain meaning.”).
Erickson v. State 599 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Erickson v. State 599 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sec., (stating that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, court may not attempt to construe or interpret it, but must “give effect to the statute’s plain meaning”).
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 598 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 598 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hospital 598 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1999
Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hospital 598 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1999
In Re Linehan 594 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1999
In Re the Claim Against the Grain Buyer's Bond of Mischel Grain & Seed, Warren, MN, Bond 92770608627589 591 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Claim Against the Grain Buyer's Bond of Mischel Grain & Seed, Warren, MN, Bond 92770608627589 591 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Great West Casualty Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Great West Casualty Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Loge 589 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Mauer v. Kircher 587 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sec., (concluding that, where words of statute are clear from ambiguity, court has no right to construe or interpret statute’s *515 language); see also Taracorp, Inc. v. NL Indus., Inc., 73 F.3d 738, 744 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding that, when parties to contract use different language to address similar issu
Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 588 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1999
Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 588 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1999
Tuma v. Comm’r of Econ Sec.
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sec., (same); (court can “reach beyond the language of a statute only when it is ambiguous”).
Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co. 582 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1998
Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co. 582 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1998
Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.L.F. 579 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.L.F. 579 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Rate Appeals of Lyngblomsten Care Center 578 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Rate Appeals of Lyngblomsten Care Center 578 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sec., (statute is ambiguous if it has.
Tracy State Bank v. Tracy-Garvin Cooperative 573 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Tracy State Bank v. Tracy-Garvin Cooperative 573 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sec., (holding where language of statute is unambiguous, court must give effect to statute’s plain meaning).
Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 567 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 567 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co. 566 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co. 566 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sec., (providing only plain language may be considered in construction of unambiguous statute).
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sec., (statute is ambiguous when it can be given more than one reasonable interpretation).
Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato 563 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato 563 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sec., (statute is ambiguous if it has more than one reasonable interpretation and court must apply rules of construction); Waller v. Powers Dep’t Store, (statutory *294 construction appropriate only when statute is ambiguous).
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Schlotz v. Hyundai Motor Co. 557 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Schlotz v. Hyundai Motor Co. 557 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In re the Cease & Desist Order Issued to Loyd 557 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1996