Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390.

340 citing documents.

Northern Realty Ventures, LLC v. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 748 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Northern Realty Ventures, LLC v. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 748 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 743 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 743 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Death Investigation of Skjervold 742 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Arneson v. Nienaber 742 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Arneson v. Nienaber 742 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Death Investigation of Skjervold 742 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Westby v. Commissioner of Public Safety 742 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Westby v. Commissioner of Public Safety 742 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Risk Level Determination of J.V. 741 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Risk Level Determination of J.V. 741 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Weber 741 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Weber 741 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
No. 695, Brookfield Trade Ctr.
Shamrock Development, Inc. v. Smith 737 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Shamrock Development, Inc. v. Smith 737 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brookfield Trade Ctr., (interpreting statute); (interpreting rules of civil procedure), review denied (Oct.
In Re the Maltreatment & Disqualification of Kleven 736 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Maltreatment & Disqualification of Kleven 736 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Jensen v. Fhima 731 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Jensen v. Fhima 731 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
And courts “will not” construe a contract to produce “a harsh and absurd result.” Brookfield Trade Ctr.
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Scheeler v. Sartell Water Controls, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Scheeler v. Sartell Water Controls, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 728 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2007
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 728 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brookfield Trade Ctr., see also O’ (noting that application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a ease involves a question of law, and the district court’s decision is not binding on this court).
In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036 724 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Commission Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036 724 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Brittain 724 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2006
In Re Brittain 724 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2006
In Re the Estate of Sullivan 724 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Estate of Sullivan 724 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Braend Ex Rel. Minor Children v. Braend 721 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Braend Ex Rel. Minor Children v. Braend 721 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Larson v. Wasemiller 718 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Larson v. Wasemiller 718 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Brookfield Trade Ctr., (statutory interpretation is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo).