Cited by

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

274 citing documents.

INTERN. ASS'N OF FIREFIGHTERS v. Plymouth 513 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
INTERN. ASS'N OF FIREFIGHTERS v. Plymouth 513 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Cold Spring 513 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kroschel v. City of Afton 512 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kroschel v. City of Afton 512 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1990)
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Wetsch 511 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Kelly 504 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Kelly 504 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
When construing a statute, our role “is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent.”
Independent School District No. 194 Lakeville v. Tollefson Development, Inc. 506 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Independent School District No. 194 Lakeville v. Tollefson Development, Inc. 506 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Trong Kim Huynh 504 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Trong Kim Huynh 504 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In re the Welfare of M.D.C. 501 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In re the Welfare of M.D.C. 501 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“Our objective when construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent.”
In Re Certificate of Need for Construction of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 501 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Certificate of Need for Construction of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 501 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(“A statute is ambiguous when it can be given more than one reasonable interpretation.”).
County of McLeod v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 499 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
County of McLeod v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 499 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“Where the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity, we have no right to construe or interpret the statute’s language.” see also MinmStat.
Keezer v. Spickard 493 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Keezer v. Spickard 493 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
When the language of a statute is ambiguous, we must “determine the probable legislative intent and give the statute a construction that is consistent with that intent.”
Judd v. State Ex Rel. Humprey 488 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Judd v. State Ex Rel. Humprey 488 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The language of subpart 10 does not refer to “footprints,” and there is no language in the rule to suggest that the “footprint” of machinery is an appropriate substitute for “gross floor space.” Therefore, the language of the rule is ambiguous as it relates to its application to facilities which do not have “gross floor space.” (“A statute is ambiguous when it can be given more than one reasonable interpretation”).
State v. Brown 486 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Brown 486 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Swanson v. Independent School District No. 625 484 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Swanson v. Independent School District No. 625 484 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
H.D. v. White 483 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
H.D. v. White 483 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minneapolis Police Officers Federation v. City of Minneapolis 481 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minneapolis Police Officers Federation v. City of Minneapolis 481 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Queen v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 481 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Queen v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 481 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re Silvestri's Teaching Contract With Independent School District No. 695 480 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
London Construction Co. v. Roseville Townhomes, Inc. 473 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
London Construction Co. v. Roseville Townhomes, Inc. 473 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Swelbar v. Lahti 473 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Swelbar v. Lahti 473 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Pluntz v. Farmington Ford-Mercury, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Pluntz v. Farmington Ford-Mercury, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Tuma v. Comm 'r of Economic Sec.
Grimm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 469 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Grimm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 469 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Turna v. Comm’r of Economic Sec.
Meehan v. Lull Corp. 466 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Meehan v. Lull Corp. 466 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Beaver Creek Mutual Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training 463 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Beaver Creek Mutual Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training 463 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Criticized Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(court’s duty is to give effect to statute’s plain meaning where words are clear); see also Fitzgerald, d at 292 (declining to follow Chardon); Board of Education v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 66 Ohio St.2d 252 , 421 N.E.2d 511 (1981) (Ohio Supreme Court refused to apply notice rule of Ric