Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larivee, 656 N.W.2d 226.

48 citing documents.

A23-1099 Rashad Ramon Ivy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-1099 Rashad Ramon Ivy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And the question he presented has not been “carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved.” (quotation omitted).
Thushari Rangika Alahapperuma v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Thushari Rangika Alahapperuma v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court has held that submission to “the state’s test” is a “condition precedent to the right to an independent test.” d 226, 229-30 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, and no word, phrase, 8 or sentence should be deemed superfl uous, void, or insignificant.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, and no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotations omitted)).
Timothy Hall, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Hall, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court “has the authority to clarify the question certified.” Respondents, citing Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), claim that “the Seventh Circuit recently held that failing to pay interest on unclaimed property constitutes a taking that requires just compensation.” Cerajeski involved an interest-bearing account.
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
§ 645.16 (“Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”); (“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its- provisions, and no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Keon Malone Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keon Malone Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
distributing, or administering a controlled substance.” This court must interpret a statute “to give effect to all of its provisions, and no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotations 12 omitted).
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, and no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1 An appellate court “has the authority to clarify the question certified.”
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
(noting the obligation to give effect to all provisions in statutes).
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Baer v. J.D. Donovan, Inc. 763 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Baer v. J.D. Donovan, Inc. 763 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(statutes should not be construed in a way that renders words superfluous).
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-30 (Minn.2003) (interpreting a statute equivalent to section 169A.51, subdivision 7(b)).
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, and no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quotation omitted); Owens v. Federated Mut.
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
Christiansen v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents 733 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Christiansen v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents 733 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(“When the district court fails to properly frame the issues, the appellate court has the authority to clarify the question certified.”).
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
the court considered and rejected a claim of a due-process violation arising in the context of blood-alcohol-coneentration testing.
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
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
(stating that when the “district court fails to properly frame the issues, the appellate court has the authority to clarify the questions certified”).
Minnesota Souvenir Milkcaps, LLC v. State 687 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnesota Souvenir Milkcaps, LLC v. State 687 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Further, “[wjords and phrases are to be given their ordinary meaning.”
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
“A certified question ‘should be carefully and precisely framed so as to present distinctly and clearly the question of law involved.’ ” (quoting Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277 , ).
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003