Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heaslip v. Freeman, 511 N.W.2d 21.

43 citing documents.

BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should look first to *910 the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Bradley v. First Nat. Bank of Walker, N.A. 711 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bradley v. First Nat. Bank of Walker, N.A. 711 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
§§ 645.08, 645.16 (2004); review denied (Minn. Feb.
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 648 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 648 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-58 (Minn.App.1995); (framing review of district court determination on reporter’s privilege as issue of statutory construction), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Brookdale Pontiac-GMC v. Federated Insurance 630 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Brookdale Pontiac-GMC v. Federated Insurance 630 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(noting that The Chicago Manual of Style (13th ed.1982) and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Lewis Jordan ed.1976) have differing opinions on whether a comma must be placed after the penultimate word in a list).
Buck v. Freeman 619 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Buck v. Freeman 619 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review de *797 nied (Minn. Feb.
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
As a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation, this court “should look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Dendy 598 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Dendy 598 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
When construing a statute, courts are to look first at the specific" statutory language and be guided by its “natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Edwards 589 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
:- The fundamental rule is to “look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Tenerelli 583 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation requires the court “to look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
In Re the Welfare of A.A.E. 579 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.A.E. 579 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Where the language of a statute is unambiguous, the rule of statutory construction directs this court to look to the “specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Tracy State Bank v. Tracy-Garvin Cooperative 573 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Tracy State Bank v. Tracy-Garvin Cooperative 573 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
As a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation, this court “should look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Petition of Anderson 565 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Petition of Anderson 565 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
As a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation, this court “should look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.”
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc.(KARE 11) 557 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc.(KARE 11) 557 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Turner, d at 631 ; State v. Knutson (Knutson II), -24 (Minn.App.1994), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Patzner v. Schaefer 551 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Patzner v. Schaefer 551 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
2 (stating that “[t]he fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
Marriage of Marden v. Marden 546 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Marden v. Marden 546 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Knutson 539 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Knutson 539 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
2 review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Newman 538 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Newman 538 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
As a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation, this court should “look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Frandrup v. Pine Bend Warehouse 531 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Frandrup v. Pine Bend Warehouse 531 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Knutson 523 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Knutson 523 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1994