Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baker v. Ploetz, 616 N.W.2d 263.

50 citing documents.

Anthony, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
mmitted deceit of their clients and collusion with the other parties in the litigation entitling plaintiff to treble damages under Minn. Stat. § 481.07 and § 481.071.” Treble damages are available pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 481.07-.071 (2022) when an attorney injures a client by engaging in deceit or collusion, but neither section creates an independent cause of action, (“section 481.071 applies only to attorney fraud committed in the context of an action or judicial proceeding”); (noting that s
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
Minn. 2020
Judicial Proceeding, Black’s Law Dictionary, supra (defining “judicial proceeding” as “[a]ny court proceeding; any proceeding initiated to procure an order or decree, whether in law or in 13 equity”); see also Baker v. Ploetz , (noting that “ a proceeding may include in its general sense all the steps taken or measures adopted in the prosecution or defense of an action , including the pleadings and judgment ” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , Baker v. Ploetz , , 269 (Minn. 2000) ("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.'
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
(“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.’ ”) ().
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
(“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.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
3 See *439 (describing the canon).
500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 837 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 2013
500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 837 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 2013
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. 771 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. 771 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(observing that statutory sections within an act should be construed in light of each other).
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
In Re the On-Sale Liquor License, Class B 763 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the On-Sale Liquor License, Class B 763 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Clark v. Pawlenty 755 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2008
Clark v. Pawlenty 755 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 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
§ 645.08(1) (2006); (“Basic rules of statutory construction instruct that words and phrases are to be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning.”).
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
-68 (Minn.2000) (ordering supplemental briefing of a potentially dispositive issue raised in an amicus brief but not addressed by the parties).
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-52 (Minn.App.1999), rev’d on other grounds
In Re Detailing Criteria & Standards for Measuring an Electric Utility's Good Faith Efforts in Meeting the Renewable … 700 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re Detailing Criteria & Standards for Measuring an Electric Utility's Good Faith Efforts in Meeting the Renewable … 700 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. v. Sherburne County 695 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. v. Sherburne County 695 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Statutory interpretation should, if possible, give effect to all the provisions of a statute, and “ ‘no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ” ().
River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Thorson v. Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n 687 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Thorson v. Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n 687 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (7)
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 668 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 668 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
645.17 (2002) (the legislature does not intend a result that is impossible, to execute); (noting that *916 various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other).
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
“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.’ ” ().
State v. Larivee 644 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Larivee 644 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mueller v. Commissioner of Economic Security 633 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mueller v. Commissioner of Economic Security 633 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“Various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other.” (citation omitted).