Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 574 N.W.2d 422.

61 citing documents.

In the Matter of Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et ... Minn. 2025
In the Matter of Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et ... Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., ( (citing Roos v. City of Mankato, 271 N.W.
Joan Przybilla, as Trustee, for Next of Kin of Rose Kramer v. Vista Prairie at River Heights, LLC,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Joan Przybilla, as Trustee, for Next of Kin of Rose Kramer v. Vista Prairie at River Heights, LLC,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
William Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital, ... Minn. 2023
William Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital, ... Minn. 2023
If the Legislature leaves our judicial interpretation undisturbed, the interpretation “becomes part of the terms of the statute itself.”
Minn. 2023
We have long held that “[w]hen a judicial interpretation of a statute has remained undisturbed, it becomes part of the terms of the statute itself.” (citing Roos v. City of Mankato, 271 N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Marlo Renee Nelson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., ( (citing Roos v. City of Mankato, 271 N.W.
Minn. 2022
We have long held that “[w]hen a judicial interpretation of a statute has remained undisturbed, it becomes part of the terms of the statute itself.” (citing Roos v. City of Mankato, 271 N.W.
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[F]or the purpose of the wrongful death statute, ‘next of kin’ means blood relatives who are members of the class from which beneficiaries are chosen under the intestacy statute.”
Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski 860 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2015
Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski 860 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2015
(stating that once we interpret a statute, that interpretation becomes a part of the statutory text).
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
("When a judicial interpretation of a statute has remained undisturbed, it becomes part of the terms of the statute itself.”).
Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Bearder v. State 806 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2011
Bearder v. State 806 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Erdman v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC. 788 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 2010
Erdman v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC. 788 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 2010
Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jones v. Borchardt 759 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Reiter v. Kiffmeyer 721 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 2006
Reiter v. Kiffmeyer 721 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 2006
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
In support of its position that a victim’s sister is entitled to restitution, the state cites to the wrongful death context, where “ ‘next of kin’ means blood relatives who are members of the class from which beneficiaries are chosen under the intestacy statute.”
State v. Collins 655 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Collins 655 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wynkoop *661 v. Carpenter
In Re the Welfare of B.J.M. 636 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of B.J.M. 636 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
5(e), expressly provides for the extension of juvenile jurisdiction for failure to appear at a juvenile court hearing only when the person “has been adjudicated delinquent.” A statute should be construed so that no phrase is “superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (citation omitted); (when statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to its plain meaning).
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
A. Related Statutes “Statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” See Astleford, d at 37 ( , *798 425 (Minn.1998)).
Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
If the language of the statute is “plain and unambiguous, the court must give it its plain meaning.” (citation omitted).
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2000
-26 (Minn.1998) (citations omitted).
Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 611 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 611 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority v. Reiling 610 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority v. Reiling 610 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rockford Township v. City of Rockford 608 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2000