Cited by

A statute is ambiguous when the language “is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

Cloud Hosp., (“Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.”).

1(a)(1); (stating appellate courts “have generally read ‘or’ to be disjunctive”).

Cloud Hosp., (applying the principle that a statute’s plain language must be followed in order to effectuate the legislature’s intention).

Amaral v. S t. Cloud Hosp.

If possible, “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp .

( noting that “or” is generally disjunctive).

See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020) (“Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”); see, e.g. , In re Reichmann Land & Cattle , d at 511 (adopting an interpretation of a statute for a pollution discharge permit that gave effect to all its provisions).

“Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.”

(noting that “or” is generally disjunctive).

We must interpret the statute so that none of the powers or duties in the statute renders any other power “superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Amaral v. Saint Cloud D-9 Hosp.

(“Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.”).

“A statute is only ambiguous when the language therein is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

(“[W]e are to construe words and phrases .

(holding that, whenever possible, a statute should be interpreted to give effect to all of its provisions and that “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant”).