Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham 791 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham 791 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Cloud Hosp., (“Absent context revealing that the word ‘or’ should be read as a conjunctive, we have generally read ‘or’ to be disjunctive.”); Aberle v. Faribault Fire Dep’t Relief Ass’n, 230 Minn. 353, 360 , (“The word ‘or’ is a disjunctive and ordinarily refers to different things as alt
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Cloud Hosp., ) (other citation omitted).
Swenson v. Holsten 783 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Swenson v. Holsten 783 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peoplenet Communications Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC 781 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Peoplenet Communications Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC 781 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 781 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 2010
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 780 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 780 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Soderquist v. Universal Services Telecom Tech Inc. 774 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Soderquist v. Universal Services Telecom Tech Inc. 774 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
McLane Minnesota, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 773 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2009
McLane Minnesota, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 773 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2009
Cloud Hosp., ); see also Minn.Stat.
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Vee v. Ibrahim 769 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Vee v. Ibrahim 769 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Look Ex Rel. Dehen v. Pact Charter School 763 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Look Ex Rel. Dehen v. Pact Charter School 763 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 758 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 758 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cloud Hosp., (stating that “or” is generally construed to be disjunctive absent any context indicating it should be construed to be conjunctive).
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“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.” (quotation omitted); Owens v. Federated Mut.
In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson 753 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson 753 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
In Re the Expulsion of N.Y.B. 750 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Expulsion of N.Y.B. 750 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cloud Hosp., (“Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence [in a statute] should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.”).
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel 748 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cloud Hosp., (stating that rules of grammar apply when determining meaning of statute).