Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 666 N.W.2d 696.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. David J. Schaffer, Below, ... 8 N.W.3d 220 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. David J. Schaffer, Below, ... 8 N.W.3d 220 Minn. 2024
(“We have recognized that when the legislature does not amend our construction of a statute, the court’s construction stands.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“The judicial construction of a statute, so long as it is unreversed, is as much a part thereof as if it had been written into it originally.” (quotation omitted)); (“We have recognized that when the legislature does not amend our construction of a statute, the court’s construction stands.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(interpreting Minnesota’s codification of common law felony-murder by examination of its “historical context”).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We consider “both the elements of the predicate felony in the abstract and the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the predicate felony involves a special danger to human life.”
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Fleming 724 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
2(1) (2004), the underlying felony must involve "special danger to human life.” -01 (Minn.2003).
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
§ 645.17(4) (2004) (stating presumption that, after court has construed statute, legislature intends same construction in subsequent laws); (“[Wjhen the legislature does not amend our construction of a statute, the court’s construction stands.”).
Veit Co. v. Lake County 707 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Veit Co. v. Lake County 707 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that when the legislature does not amend the supreme court’s construction of a statute, the court’s construction stands) (citing W. Union Tel.
State v. Mitchell 693 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Mitchell 693 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Miller 689 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Miller 689 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. McDonnell 686 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. McDonnell 686 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2004