Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anker v. Little, 541 N.W.2d 333.

43 citing documents.

A24-1331 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“If the statute is free from ambiguity, we look only at its plain language.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Laurissa Wredberg, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When interpreting statutes, our function is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” d 333, 336 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Tyrone Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When interpreting statutes, our function is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Mark Weber, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When interpreting statutes, our function is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Daley Farm of Lewiston, L.L.P., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When interpreting statutes, our function is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” d 333, 336 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
A19-0355 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When interpreting statutes, our function is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Gust G. Johanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When interpreting statutes, our function is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Neil Douglas Selseth, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If “the statute’ s unambiguous language merely produces a troubling result, we must apply it without reference to its drafting history.” Anker v. Little , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Anker v. Little , , 337 (Minn. App. 1995) (holding that the court would not look beyond the unambiguous language of the statute *5 because "our judicial role requires us to exercise this authority sparingly and only when a party demonstrates the statute's plain language violates a clearly expressed goal of the legislature"), review den
Nichols v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 927 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nichols v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 927 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Anker v. Little , , 336 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Turk Trust, LLC, successor-in-interest to LAD, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(holding that 10 even if the application of a statute’s unambiguous language produces a troubling result, it is that language that must be applied), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Burck v. Pederson 704 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Burck v. Pederson 704 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 659 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2003
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 659 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2003
Msi v. Lmcit 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Msi v. Lmcit 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
§ 645.17(1) (2000); review denied (Minn. Feb.
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
§ 645.17(1) (2000); Wegener v. Comm’r of Revenue, review denied (Minn. Feb.
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge 637 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge 637 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 626 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 626 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Buss v. Johnson 624 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Buss v. Johnson 624 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
If the statute’s literal meaning leads to “an absurd result that utterly-departs from the legislature’s purpose, we may look beyond the language and examine other indicia of legislative intent.” (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Erickson v. State 599 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Erickson v. State 599 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Although courts have the power to inquire beyond a statute’s plain language, they must “exercise this authority sparingly and only when a party demonstrates the statute’s plain language violates a clearly expressed goal of the legislature.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 598 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 598 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Schramel 581 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Schramel 581 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding that if words of statute are unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Altimus v. Hyundai Motor Co. 578 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Altimus v. Hyundai Motor Co. 578 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
80 , 139 L.Ed.2d 38 (1997); review denied (Minn. Feb.
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Criticized Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Schlotz v. Hyundai Motor Co. 557 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Schlotz v. Hyundai Motor Co. 557 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(holding plaintiffs cause of action extinguished through application of the seat belt gag rule), review denied (Minn. Feb.