Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, 659 N.W.2d 755.

40 citing documents.

Alan Lee Cimbura, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The County of Hennepin by Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
Robert Edward Dornbusch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 860 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Edward Dornbusch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 860 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Trust, –62 (Minn. 2003) (summarizing decisions and clarifying that “the court could disregard the plain language of a statute only where the legislative purpose was clear and the plain meaning would utterly confound that purpose”).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A13-2176), GEICO Insurance Company, (A14-0167) v. Metropolitan Council, Lashandra Scott, (A13-2176), Adelfa … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Council 854 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Council 854 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Trust, (stating that if there is a conflict between the no-fault act’s definition of a “motor vehicle” and other statutory provisions, the definition should prevail, and it falls to the legislature to correct any inconsistency).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A13-2176), GEICO Insurance Company, (A14-0167) v. Metropolitan Council, Lashandra Scott, (A13-2176), Adelfa … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Trust, (stating that if there is a conflict between the no-fault act’s definition of a “motor vehicle” and other statutory provisions, the definition should prevail, and it falls to the legislature to correct any inconsistency).
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
City of Cloquet v. Crandall 824 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
City of Cloquet v. Crandall 824 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Trust, -62 (Minn.2003); -96 (Minn.1997).
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 811 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 811 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Followed State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
And in Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, it summarized its prior decisions and clarified that “the court could disregard the plain language of a statute only where the legislative purpose was clear and the plain meaning would utterly confound that purpose.” , 761-62 (Minn.2003).
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
Johnson v. Cummiskey 765 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Johnson v. Cummiskey 765 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Trust, -60 (Minn.2003) (listing statutory exclusions and adding marked patrol cars to the list).
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Toth v. Arason 722 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2006
Toth v. Arason 722 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2006
Trust, (applying plain meaning of term even though it resulted “in a class of accident victims being uncompensated”).
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
In Re Matter of Hildebrandt 701 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re Matter of Hildebrandt 701 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Trust, (stating “where the intention of the legislature is clearly manifested by plain and unambiguous language, [appellate courts] have neither the need nor the permission to engage in statutory interpretation”).
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 691 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2005
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 691 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2005
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Trust, (stating “where the intention of the legislature is clearly manifested by plain and unambiguous language, [appellate courts] have neither the need nor the permission to engage in statutory interpretation”).
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Abd Alla v. Mourssi 680 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Abd Alla v. Mourssi 680 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Trust, (“[Wjhere the intention of the legislature is clearly manifested by plain and unambiguous language, [courts] have neither the need nor the permission to engage in statutory interpretation.”); Minn. Stat. § 645.44 , subd.
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004