Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., 645 N.W.2d 413.

77 citing documents.

Schmidt v. City of Columbia Heights 696 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
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 ; Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
State v. Anderson 683 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 2004
State v. Anderson 683 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 2004
When the text of a law is plain and unambiguous, we “must not engage in any further construction.” Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., see also Minn.Stat.
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
A court “must give a plain reading to any statute it construes, and when the language of the statute is clear, the court must not engage in any further construction.” Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Gomon v. Northland, Family Physicians, Ltd.
Murphy v. Allina Health System 668 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Murphy v. Allina Health System 668 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Relying primarily on Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., 1 the district court concluded that the 2002 amendment to section 573.02 applied retroactively to causes of action accruing on or after August 1, 1999, but not to causes of action that accrued prior to August 1, 1999, but were brought after August 1, 1999.
State v. Iverson 664 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2003
State v. Iverson 664 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2003
See, e.g., Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., (stating that this court is precluded from engaging in statutory construction if the language of the statute is clear); -57 (Minn.2000) (“[Wjhere the language of the statute is clear, the court is bound to give effect thereto”).
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. 662 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2003
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. 662 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2003
“[T]he court must give a plain reading to any statute it construes, and when the language of the statute is clear, the court must not engage in any further construction.” Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., (citing State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., ); Minn.Stat.
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
See, e.g., Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., Minn.Stat.
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
“When interpreting a statute, a court must first determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.” Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Services 660 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
§ 541.076(b); see Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., -20 (Minn.2002) (holding that the new statute of limitations “applies to all claims that are within the four-year limitations period and commenced on or after the effective date of the new statute”).
Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Services 660 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
1999 Minn. Laws ch. 23, § 3; see also Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., -20 (Minn.2002) (holding that Minn.Stat.
Nash v. Wollan 656 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Nash v. Wollan 656 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.