Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711.

167 citing documents.

State v. Jones 700 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council 674 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council 674 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
The “object of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent.”
Roloff v. Commissioner of the Department of Employment & Economic Development 668 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Roloff v. Commissioner of the Department of Employment & Economic Development 668 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003
State v. Lilleskov 658 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Lilleskov 658 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The purpose of the predatory-offender-registration statute “is to create an offender registry to assist law enforcement with investigations.”
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. 654 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. 654 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Absent ambiguity, therefore, “the court must look only to the plain meaning of the statutory language.” (citation omitted).
Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 650 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2002
Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 650 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Houston v. International Data Transfer Corp. 645 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
Houston v. International Data Transfer Corp. 645 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2000); -16 (Minn.1999).
Walker v. Zuehlke 642 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2002
Walker v. Zuehlke 642 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2002
Therefore, “we exercise our power to declare a statute unconstitutional with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
With regard to the predatory offender registration statute, we held that the statute was civil and regulatory, and not penal, because it did not have the fundamental characteristics of punishment set out by the United States Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Wagner 637 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Wagner 637 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
see also State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247, 257
State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of B.J.M. 636 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of B.J.M. 636 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
5(e), expressly provides for the extension of juvenile jurisdiction for failure to appear at a juvenile court hearing only when the person “has been adjudicated delinquent.” A statute should be construed so that no phrase is “superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (citation omitted); (when statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to its plain meaning).
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A statute should be construed so no phrase is “superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (citation omitted).
Kent v. Block 623 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kent v. Block 623 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citing canon that statute must be construed so that all terms have meaning).
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kaiser v. State 621 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kaiser v. State 621 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(statute must be construed so that all terms have meaning).
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 616 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 2000
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 616 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 2000
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
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
The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent, and we liberally construe and'apply pen-, sion statutes to carry out their purpose, see Donaldson v. Mankato Policemen’s Benefit Ass’n
Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services 612 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services 612 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
507, 510 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971); (recognizing liberty interest is implicated when loss of reputation is coupled with loss of another tangible interest), ce rt.