Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Isaacson, 865 N.W.2d 679.

133 citing documents.

State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
*360 State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the Legislature’s intent is discernible from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
" State v. Prigge , , 638 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Riggs , , 683 (Minn. 2015) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”
State v. Gosewisch 921 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).
A18-1143 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015) ; see also Hanson , d at 6 ("Dismissal of a complaint based on the construction of a statute is subject to de novo review.").
Community First Bank, a Wisconsin banking corporation, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“If the Legislature’s intent is discernible from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”
A17-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2018
Reading these two sentences together, and giving effect to all of their words, as we must, see State v. Prigge , , 638 (Minn. 2018) (citing State v. Riggs , , 683 (Minn. 2015) ("[W]e construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.") ), the plain language of subdivision 4(a) establishes that the Legend Drug Tax applies: (1) to a person who receives legend drugs for resale or use in Minnesota (2) when that person receives or
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
State v. Riggs , , 683 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Prigge , d at 640 ("The whole-statute canon ...
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).
State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Riggs , , 682 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
5 We “construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1(a)(1) (2016); -86 (Minn. 2015) (defining “result” as a “result of the offense”).
Nelson v. State 896 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The objective of statutory interpretation is to “effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Nyree McCabe 890 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 887 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2016
“If the Legislature’s intent is discernible from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald David Olson 884 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
In determining whether the statute is ambiguous, we consider the “canons of interpretation” listed in Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2014), and interpret the statute as a whole to “harmonize and give effect to all its parts,” presuming that the Legislature “intended the entire statute to be effective and certain.” -83 (Minn. 2015).
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2016
n.7 1 The underlying facts are not in dispute in this appeal.
Crystal Louise Breezee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 877 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Eugene Lee Rushton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Jean Lunzer v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guy Israel Greene v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Allen Ihnot Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”); (“Interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by