Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152.

114 citing documents.

Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
158 (Minn. 2000) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2014)) (noting that we avoid interpreting statutes in a way that would create surplusage).
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
see also Aberle v. Fairbault Fire Dep’t Relief Ass’n, 230 Minn. 353, 360
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Ndikum 802 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Ndikum 802 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
If the language is unambiguous, we must give effect to the unambiguous text because the “letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Turnbull 766 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Turnbull 766 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 755 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 755 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But “the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” (quotation omitted).
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
“[Ijn the absence of some ambiguity surrounding the legislature’s use of the word ‘or,’ we will read it in the disjunctive and require that only one of the possible factual situations be present in order for the statute to be satisfied.”
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 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
In Re the Estate of Sullivan 724 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Estate of Sullivan 724 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
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
State v. Skapyak 702 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Skapyak 702 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Hartmann 681 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hartmann 681 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
State v. Arkell 672 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
State v. Arkell 672 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
6 a driver of a motor vehicle was cited for driving with open bottles of alcohol in his vehicle.
State v. Wohlsol, Inc. 670 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Wohlsol, Inc. 670 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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”).