Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, VIN No. 2MEBP95F9CX644211, License No. MN 225 NSG, 622 N.W.2d 114.

76 citing documents.

Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, -118 (Minn. 2001) (stating that “the rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out” and acknowledging that when one section of a statute contains a particular provision omission of same provision from similar section is significant to show d
Tenisha Williams v. Halimatou Diallo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tenisha Williams v. Halimatou Diallo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The rules of statutory construction prohibit appellate courts from “adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.” Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
In re the Marriage of: Sandee Goldsmith Becker, n/k/a Sandee Scroggs Goldsmith v. Leon L. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Sandee Goldsmith Becker, n/k/a Sandee Scroggs Goldsmith v. Leon L. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The rules of statutory construction prohibit appellate courts from “adding words or meaning to a 5 statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.” Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Andrew Joseph Haman v. Seth Tyberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Andrew Joseph Haman v. Seth Tyberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Moreover, the rules of statutory construction prohibit appellate courts from “adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.” Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Wilmington Trust, National Association, Minn. 2023
See Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, (“The rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.”).
In re the Matter of: E. M. B., DOB February 14, 2014, Sharo’n Lily Isabella Mathison, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Kristen M. Egan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Therefore, “‘[w]hen a question of statutory construction involves a failure of expression rather than an ambiguity of expression, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.’” Rohmiller, d at 590 (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, ).
A19-1878 Minn. 2021
Partners III- Lofts, LLC, (stating that we must follow the plain and unambiguous language of a statute); 6 (Minn. 2017) (rejecting the argument that the Legislature could not have intended what the words of the statute plainly said); Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, (stating that a court cannot add meaning or words to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out).
Terry L. Smeby, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And as we attempt to discern legislative meaning, “[t]he rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.” Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Farmers Mill & Elevator, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, .
Minn. 2021
See Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, (stating that a court cannot “add[] words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
n.9 (Minn. 2011) (declining to “abandon the plain language” of a statute in favor of an interpretation that “inserts” a limitation not otherwise present); Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis , (“The rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.”).
Joseph Z. Livingston, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But it is now axiomatic that, consistent with the separation of powers and the limited role of the judiciary, “[t]he rules of construction fo rbid adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentiona lly or inadvertently left out.” Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis , , 119 (Minn. 2001).
KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council 884 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle 881 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle 881 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2016
.”); see Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, d 753, 760 (Minn. 2010) (“[O]ur rules of construction ‘forbid adding words or meaning to a statute’ that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, )).
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 878 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2016
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
But when a statute is “completely silent on a contested issue,” we do not look beyond the statutory text to discern its meaning unless there is an “ambiguity of expression” — rather than a “failure of expression.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, ).
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
§ 609.2231 may be sound, we "cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, (citing Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, (stating that the court may not add words to a 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
And we cannot add words to a statute “that [the Legislature] intentionally or inadvertently left out.” Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
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
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
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
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
ding that we “cannot read into the statute any additional rights” beyond those expressly enumerated); Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (“If the legislature fails to address a particular topic, our rules of construction ‘forbid adding words or meaning to a statute’ that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, )).
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 839 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 839 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
See Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, (“If the legislature fails to address a particular topic, our rules of construction ‘forbid adding words or meaning to a statute’ that are purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quoting Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, )).
Northern States Power Co. ex rel. Board of Directors v. Aleckson 831 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2013
Northern States Power Co. ex rel. Board of Directors v. Aleckson 831 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2013
of Olmsted, (refusing to interpret a statute in such a way that would in effect add an exception to a statute); Genin v.1996 Mercury Marquis, (explaining that “adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out” is forbidden).
Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
See Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, (“The rules of construction forbid adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.”).
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 818 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County 806 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
2, is one that interprets the statute as expiring "after election day.” But we do not read language into a statute that the Legislature has "purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, see also Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis