Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283.

220 citing documents.

City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied, (Minn. Dec.
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
And we are mindful that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” (citations omitted)); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Dahlin v. Kroening 784 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Ramsey County v. Yee Lee 770 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Ramsey County v. Yee Lee 770 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co., (“The Minnesota Supreme Court is the appropriate forum to address a question regarding the extension of existing law.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996); (stating that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”).
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Although the policy argument has merit, “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, not to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 766 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(“The task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn, Dec.
State v. Hodges 757 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hodges 757 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Tereault v. *698 Palmer, (“[T]he task extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(stating that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
"[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
In Re Rollins 738 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Rollins 738 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, e.g., Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating that “[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks”); (stating that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this *802 court”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P. 715 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P. 715 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Further, “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(observing that task of extending existing law should fall to supreme court or legislature, not court of appeals), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Fitzpatrick 690 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Fitzpatrick 690 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Chenoweth v. City of New Brighton 655 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(noting “task of extending laws falls to the supreme court or the legislature, *611 but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Mar-tinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , review denied (Minn. Dec.
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”); (stating that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit 633 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit 633 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (stating "[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature"); (stating "the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court"), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Anderson v. City of Cokato 631 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Anderson v. City of Cokato 631 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
We are mindful that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by