Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366.

110 citing documents.

State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Johnson v. State 820 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Johnson v. State 820 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Barsness 795 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Barsness 795 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
given their plain and ordinary meaning,” and when the words of the statute are ambiguous, “the intent of the legislature controls.” Minn.Stat.
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
When we interpret a statute, our goal must be to “effectuate the intent of the legislature,” and we construe the statute’s words and phrases according to their “plain and ordinary meaning.” see also Minn.Stat.
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Statutory construction rules require that a statute be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and when the words of the statute are ambiguous, “the intent of the legislature controls.”
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
Hastings v. Bailey, 263 Minn. 261, 266 , )
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hastings v. Bailey, 263 Minn. 261, 266 , )
State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
§ 645.17(1) (2006); (stating same).
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Sopko 770 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Sopko 770 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
intend absurd or unreasonable results.”
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
intend absurd or unreasonable results.”
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
Second, while we must strictly construe criminal statutes, resolving all reasonable doubt concerning the intent of the legislature in favor of the defendant, -73 (Minn.2003), remedial statutes are to be construed liberally, State v. Indus.
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
We presume “that the legislature does not intend * * * absurd or unreasonable results.”
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adickes 741 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Adickes 741 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
given their plain and ordinary meaning,” and when the words of the statute are ambiguous, “the intent of the legislature controls.” Minn.Stat.
State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“The object of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of *692 the legislature.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2002)).
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 645.17(1) (2006) (presuming that legislature does not intend absurd or unreasonable result); -73 (Minn.2003) (specifying applicable rules for construction of a criminal statute); Septran, Inc. v. Indep.
In Re Welfare of C.T.L. 722 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Welfare of C.T.L. 722 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Probable cause to support a criminal charge exists when “ ‘the evidence worthy of consideration * * * brings the ' charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.’ ” (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , ).
Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
If any ambiguity remains, “[p]enal statutes are to be construed strictly so that all reasonable doubt concerning legislative intent is resolved in favor of the defendant.” -73 (Minn.2003).