Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346.

213 citing documents.

State v. Thompson 754 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 2008
The objective of all statutory interpretation is “to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.” Minn.Stat.
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
The factual basis must establish “ ‘sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.’” -50 (Minn.2003) (quoting Kelsey v. State, 298 Minn. 531, 532 , ).
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
See, -51 (Minn.2003) (stating that the best method of determining legislative intent is by relying on a statute’s plain meaning).
Ittel v. Pietig 705 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ittel v. Pietig 705 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lee v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 672 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lee v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 672 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
1 -51 (Minn.2003) (stating the best method of determining legislative intent is by relying on the plain meaning of the statute; the court will only look beyond the plain meaning if the text is ambiguous).