Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Zacher, 504 N.W.2d 468.

64 citing documents.

James L. Lang, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating a property is subject to mortgage “until the redemption period expires”).
Prime Security Bank v. A&G Investments, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prime Security Bank v. A&G Investments, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prime also challenges the district court’s d 468 (Minn. 1993), for the idea that “the time for redemption” in Minn. Stat. § 580.12, is limited to the mortgagor’s redemption period.
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC 791 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC 791 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
for the proposition that its original mortgage lien, which secured the balance of its loan, was satisfied when it purchased the units for the amount of the outstanding debt at the sheriffs sale and that it obtained a new lien, which secured its bids at the sheriffs sale.
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
But such construction does not require “the narrowest possible interpretation to the statute.”
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(holding that rule of strict construction does not require narrowest possible interpretation).
State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. White 692 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. White 692 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Arkell 672 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
State v. Arkell 672 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Meyer 646 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Meyer 646 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000
Basic rules of statutory construction instruct that words and phrases are to be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning, see Frank’s Nursery Sales, and the language of criminal statutes is to be strictly construed
State v. Loge 608 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2000
State v. Loge 608 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2000
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding rule of strict construction does not require court to assign narrowest possible interpretation to statute); see also United States v. Gideon, 1 Minn. 292, 296 , 1 Gil.
State v. Schramel 581 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Schramel 581 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding that the rule of strict construction does not require the court to assign the narrowest possible interpretation to the statute); -28 (Minn.1985) (holding that in presence of any doubt, a penal statute is to be strictly construed).
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne 578 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1998
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne 578 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1998
State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Bauman 552 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Bauman 552 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1996