Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 695.

122 citing documents.

Independent School District No. 709 v. Bonney 705 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Independent School District No. 709 v. Bonney 705 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., see also Minn.Stat.
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., , 701 (Minn.1996); Harbal v. Fed.
State v. Banken 690 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Banken 690 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
State v. Manypenny 682 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2004
State v. Manypenny 682 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2004
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
In Re Qwest's Wholesale Service Quality Standards 678 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re Qwest's Wholesale Service Quality Standards 678 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., -02 (Minn.1996) (when a statute is unambiguous, the court must apply its plain meaning).
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 667 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 667 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. 662 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2003
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. 662 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2003
“[T]he court must give a plain reading to any statute it construes, and when the language of the statute is clear, the court must not engage in any further construction.” Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., (citing State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., ); Minn.Stat.
State v. Coleman 661 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Coleman 661 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“A statute is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.” State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2002
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2002
See State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Rasidescu v. Commissioner of Economic Security 644 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rasidescu v. Commissioner of Economic Security 644 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
§ 645.08 (2000) (explaining that words and phrases should be construed according to their plain meaning); State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., (stating that if statutory language is unambiguous the court must apply its plain meaning).
Hanson v. Thom 636 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hanson v. Thom 636 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., see also Minn.Stat.
Hince v. O'KEEFE 632 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2001
Hince v. O'KEEFE 632 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2001
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Morton v. DYSTE 627 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Morton v. DYSTE 627 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc. see Tuma v. Commissioner of Econ.
Baughman v. Mellon Mortgage Co. 621 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baughman v. Mellon Mortgage Co. 621 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., (when legislative intent manifested by plain and unambiguous statutory language, statutory construction neither necessary nor permissible).
Mullins v. Churchill 616 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mullins v. Churchill 616 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
See State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 611 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2000
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 611 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2000
We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo, see State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., and our primary objective is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent.
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority v. Reiling 610 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., see also Minn.Stat.
Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority v. Reiling 610 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“If the legislature’s intent is clearly manifested by [the] plain and unambiguous language of the statute, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted.” (quoting State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., ) (alteration in original).
Owens Ex Rel. Owens v. Water Gremlin Co. 605 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2000
Owens Ex Rel. Owens v. Water Gremlin Co. 605 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2000
Id.; see also State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. 603 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. 603 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., (concluding if statute is unambiguous, court may engage in no further statutory construction and must apply plain meaning).
State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999