Cited by

Cf. Brekke v. TMH Biomedical, Inc., (assessing whether the statutory language provides any “evidence of an intent to abrogate .

The employees argued that we should define wages as we had done in a prior decision, Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc ., 75 (Minn. 2004).

See Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, ; Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.

See Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. , (“ [W]e have repeatedly held that statutes will be presumed to not eliminate equitable remedies and are to be strictly construed so as to not supplant or restrict equity’s normal function as an aid to complete justice.” (quotation omitted)), rehearing denied (Minn. Aug.

Baylor cites Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. for the premise that the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents a party with unclean hands from “taking unconscionable advantage of [its] own wrong by asserting 7 [its] strict legal rights.” (quot ation omitted).

Cf. Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., - 76 (Minn. 2004) (holding that common-law waiver and estoppel defenses were not abrogated by statute listing ot her exceptions to liability und er the statute).

Christopherson relies on Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., for the proposition that it is “presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law” and that a statute may abrogate the common law only “by express w ording or necessary implication.” Id.

This is because “everyone is presumed to know the law.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc .

Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (quotation omitted).

Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.

76, 82 (1924), courts have “long presumed 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.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.

Courts 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.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (quotation omitted).

II Olson also argues that “equitable estoppel precluded dismissal of this litigation.” “Equitable estoppel is a doctrine addressed to the discretion of the court and is intended to prevent a party from taking unconscionable a dvantage of his own wr ong by asserting his strict legal rights.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. , (quotation omitted).

Minnesota courts have “long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law, and if a 10 statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (quotation omitted); (“[S]tatutes are not to be construed in derogation of well-established principles of the common law or equity unless such a construction is required by the express words of the statute or by necessary implication.”).

4 TLM relies heavily on Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., for the proposition that equitable principles provide a defense to penalties under section 181.14.

In addition, we strictly construe “provisions that provide for a penalty.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., see also Chatfield v. Henderson, 252 Minn. 404, 410

“We have long presumed 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.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (quotation omitted).

In Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., the supreme court noted that this section does not define “wages.”

Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (“We have long presumed 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.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

To support this argument, the employees relied on our decision in Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., which defined wages under section 181.79 as “ ‘all compensation for performance of services by an employee for an employer.’ ” Id.

Minnesota courts have “long presumed 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.” Brekke v. THM Biomed., Inc., (quotation omitted).

See Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., , 779 n. 6 (Minn.2004).

18, 2000); see also Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (“We presume that the legislature’s omission of additional exemption was deliberate.”).

See Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (citing Chatfield v. Henderson, 252 Minn. 404, 410 , ).

We recently noted that an analogous concept — that everyone is presumed to know the law' — "does not necessarily apply [as a defense for] a fiduciary, who may have an expanded obligation to inform the beneficiary of the legal implications of their dealings.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc.