Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Traczyk, 421 N.W.2d 299.

23 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Petitions of The Auto Club Group, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A17-0040 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legisl ature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.21 (2016); as amended (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accordingly, for a statute to be applied retroactively, the legislature must provide clear evidence that it intended retroactive application, “such as mention of the word ‘retroactive.’” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.21 (2016); as amended (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
So for a statute to be applied retroactively, the legislature must provide clear evidence for it to be applied that way, such as using the word “retroactive.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.21 (2016); as amended (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accordingly, for a statute to 10 be applied to conduct committed before its effective date, the legislature must provide clear evidence that it intended that application, “such as mention of th e word ‘retroactive.’” State v. Traczyk , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In Minnesota no statute shall be construed to be applied retroactively unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accordingly, for a statute to be applied to conduct committed before its effective date, the legislature must provide clear evidence that it intended that application, “such as mention of the word ‘retroactive.’” State v. Traczyk , (quotation omitted).
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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
302 n. 4 (Minn. 1988) (limiting the interpretation of retroactivity in Klimmek to the area of workers' compensation law).
State v. Burns 524 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Burns 524 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
300 n. 2 (Minn.1988) (holding that an extension amendment is not afforded retroactive application by reference to standards governing statutory interpretation).
Wschola v. Snyder 478 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wschola v. Snyder 478 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Johnson 422 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Johnson 422 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1988