Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hutchins, 866 N.W.2d 905.

37 citing documents.

In Re the Custody of A.L.A.; Bamidele Adetifa v. Betiel Ambaye Mehari, Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When conducting statutory interpretation, a court must first “determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” (quotation omitted).
County of Dakota, ex rel., Michelle Marie Hinz v. Bryan Arthur Rittweger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In reaching her decision, the CSM relied primarily on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
In re the Estate of Irvin John Cooper, Sr., Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2025
It is well settled that “‘equity follows the law,’ and [appellate courts] may not ‘disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.”’ (quoting Kingery v. Kingery, 241 N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Brian Wayne Kusie v. Stephanie Louise Kusie Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review legal questions de novo, and will only set aside findings of fact if they are clearly erroneous, rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Richard Whitman v. Highland Management Group Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face, and “[i]f a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’ s plain meaning.” (construing child-support statutes).
In re: the Matter of the Le Duc Living Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 905, 914 (Minn. 2015).
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
9 earliest, to the date of service of notice of the motion to modify.”
In the Marriage of: Elizabeth Joy Glirbas v. Joshua Robert Glirbas Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2024)); n.1 (Minn. 2015)
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Matthew Ryan Foede v. Courtney Ann-Nicole Vaughn, County of Sherburne, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Charlene Karen Jundt v. Marcus Edward Jundt Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3b, by first determining “whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” (quotation omitted) (interpreting child-support statutes).
All-American Ice L.L.C., DBA All-American Arena Products v. American Arena, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Interpreting a statute is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.” (construing child support statutes).
In re the Marriage of: Emily Lynn Rasmussen v. Nicholas Steven Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Finally, father argues that but for these errors, he would have met his burden of proving that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred that made the existing child-support order unfair and made to the guidelines ‘basic support’ amount” when determining whether the presumptions apply), abrogated by
In the Matter of: Ellen Sue Laas Ewald, et al v. Nina Laas Ewald Nedrebo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Taquinia Kokela Douglas, Minn. 2023
To do so, we must first “determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Marcia Swanson v. Denise Wolf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.”
In re the Marriage of: Marlo Renee Nelson v. Daniel Lawrence Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2022)); n.1 (Minn. 2015)
Andrew Crisman, et al v. Hillman Township, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Barrick … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In interpreting statutory provisions, we are instructed to “interpret statutes as a whole, and the words and sentences therein are to be understood in the light of their context.” Floding v. Gillespie (In re Dakota C ounty), (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Marquell Deon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
30, 2014) and order granting review vacated
Jenna Kayleen Christensen v. Karrie Kelly, Wabasha County Attorney, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Floding v. Gillespie (In re Dakota County ), (Mi nn.
In re the Marriage of: Matthew James Beland v. Heidi Ann Beland, Polk County, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Grant v. Koser , d 237, 241 (Minn. App. 201 2), abrogated on other gr ounds by In re Dakota County
Jamison John Stewart v. John Doe, vs. Hoda Ahmed Sulub, Malko Ibrahim, et al., Third-Party Intervenors Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Matter of: Brian Eugene Wolf v. Mandy Marie Oestreich Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(statutes); In re Custody of D.T.R.
Hubbard County Social Services, Amy Alyssa Post v. Samuel Morton Post III Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Dennis J. Arvig v. Trudy A. Kawlewski, County of Wadena, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Erick Carl Longo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
dismissed as improvidently granted, ).
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
604-08 (Minn. 2017) ; In re Dakota County , , 911-13 (Minn. 2015) ; State v. Wenthe , , 303 (Minn. 2015) ; Occhino , d at 359-61 ; In re Robledo , , 69 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Mechelle M. Lund v. Jeffrey W. Lund Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hubbard County Health & Human Servs.
Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
909 (Minn. 2015) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Antoinette Kafui Totimeh v. Clement Olertey Totimeh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 897 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“If a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” (making this.
In re the Marriage of: Elio Fumagalli v. Stacy Lynn Fumagalli Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Terri Lyn Swart, Kandiyohi County v. Tracy Donald Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2(a) (2016); I n r e D a k o t a C t y .
State of Minnesota v. Scott James Boorman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
dismissed as improvidently granted
John D. Perschbacher (A15-0619) (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“If a statute is unambiguous, [the court will] apply the statute’s plain meaning.”
Hennepin County, Mamie Jegbadai v. Gbenga Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When setting a child support obligation, the district court “must decide whether to deviate or not deviate” from the presumptively appropriate guidelines, and may do so to encourage prompt and regular support payments or to prevent the children and either parent from living in poverty, Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd.