Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302.

117 citing documents.

Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465 , (stating that we have “long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law”).
In Re the Conservatorship of Miller 642 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Conservatorship of Miller 642 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Shaw Acquisition Co. v. Bank of Elk River 639 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 2002
Shaw Acquisition Co. v. Bank of Elk River 639 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 2002
We “presume[] that statutes are consistent with the common law, and if a statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication.” see also Bloom v. Am.
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
to support reading a public policy requirement into the whistleblower statute.
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The statute permits an award of attorney fees “only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.”
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(Page, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (a court should not read into a statute what the legislature has left out).
In Re the Trusteeship of the Trust of Williams 631 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Trusteeship of the Trust of Williams 631 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
The tobacco companies argue that, in Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., , 314 n. 25 (2000), this court implicitly acknowledged that the universe of those who may bring an action under subdivision 3a to enforce the misrepresentation in sales laws is limited to those intended to be protected by the substantive laws.