Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hospital, 598 N.W.2d 379.

308 citing documents.

Jeffrey Hortian, Relators v. Darren E. Fischer, Wright County Planning Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bankof New Orleans, Louisiana 869 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bankof New Orleans, Louisiana 869 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. 869 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
(“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, and ‘no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ”) ().
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights 868 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights 868 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
9 The objective of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffery R. Schultz v. Scott A. Mende, and third party v. City of Madison Lake, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeffery R. Schultz v. Scott A. Mende, and third party v. City of Madison Lake, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cloud Hosp., (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16).
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
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
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
We also interpret statutes to give effect to all of their provisions, and whenever possible, “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.”
City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The section does not define “psychologist,” and unlike the duty-to-warn statute, the testimonial privilege does not specifically include a licensing requirement.3 Construing “psychologist” according to its “most natural and obvious usage,” we note that the dictionary defines the term as “[a] person trained and educated to perform psychological research, testing, and therapy.” The American Heritage Dictionary 1125 (4th ed. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Star Tribune Media Co. 849 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Star Tribune Media Co. 849 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cloud Hosp., (stating that under basic canons of statutory construction “[w]henever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant”).
In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP 847 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP 847 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A statute’s language is ambiguous only when it “is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
A statute is “ambiguous when the language therein is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lakes Area Business Ass'n v. City of Forest Lake 842 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lakes Area Business Ass'n v. City of Forest Lake 842 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A statute is only ambiguous when the language therein is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., *324
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
v. Schroedl, (); see also Minn.Stat.
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
State v. Rick 835 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 2013
Cloud Hosp., (stating that “[wjhenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant”).
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
Christianson v. Henke 831 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2013
We have further stated that “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.”
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013