Cluster 1631676
green
· 92 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 35 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Finnegan v. SunTrust Mortgage (2015)
See Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark, 850 N.W.2d 682 , 691 (Minn.2014) (stating that the court will not read a cause of action into a statute that the Legislature did not provide) (citing Krueger v. Zeman Const. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 864 (Minn. 2010) (“[the court] cannot read into the statute any additional rights.”); Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Minn.2010) (“If the legislature fails to address a particular topi…
“[the court] cannot read into the statute any additional rights.”
green
Kaylen Stiever v. Lake County (2026)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010).
green
Daniel Graff v. Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. (2024)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. 2010).
green
In re the Estate of: Joanne Mary Ecklund, Decedent (2023)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010) (stating that courts construe statutory language words and phrases “according to their most natural and obvious usage” (quotation omitted)).
stating that courts construe statutory language words and phrases “according to their most natural and obvious usage” (quotation omitted)
green
State v. Carson (2017)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010)); id. at 24 n.9 (analogizing the interpretation of rules to the interpretation of statutes).
green
Nelson v. State (2017)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010); Schiff, 639 N.W.2d at 59 .
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861-63 (Minn. 2010) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim by an individual who had no right to sue under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, discussing the issue both in terms of “statutory standing” and as a question of whether the statute “provide[s] a cause of action”).
affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim by an individual who had no right to sue under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, discussing the issue both in terms of “statutory standing” and as a question of whether the statute “provide[s] a cause of action”
green
Peterson v. City of Minneapolis (2017)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010).
green
Lapoint v. Orthodontics (2017)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010) (stating that we review the construction of the MHRA’s provisions de novo).
stating that we review the construction of the MHRA’s provisions de novo
green
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development (2016)
Our decision in Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 862-64 (Minn. 2010), confirms this rule.
green
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development (2016)
Our decision in Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 862-64 (Minn. 2010), confirms this rule.
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 863-64 (Minn.2010).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 862 (Minn. 2010) (“[W]hen an individual or company violates a civil rights law, the act of discrimination itself constitutes sufficient injury for the law to provide a remedy, in the absence of statutory language requiring more.” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted)).
“[W]hen an individual or company violates a civil rights law, the act of discrimination itself constitutes sufficient injury for the law to provide a remedy, in the absence of statutory language requiring more.” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted)
green
Tovar v. Essentia Health (2016)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 862 (Minn.2010).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010))).
green
Scott v. CSL Plasma, Inc. (2015)
A person “is ‘aggrieved’ in the legal sense when she has suffered the denial or infringement of .a legal right, and the MHRA allows an aggrieved person to seek ‘redress for an unfair discriminatory practice.’” Krueger, v. Zeman Const. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 862 (Minn.2010) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 1).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 858, 861-63 (Minn. 2010) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim of action by an individual who had no right to sue under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, discussing the issue both in terms of “statutory standing” and as a question of whether the statute “provide[s] a cause of action”).
affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim of action by an individual who had no right to sue under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, discussing the issue both in terms of “statutory standing” and as a question of whether the statute “provide[s] a cause of action”
green
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. (2015)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 867 (Minn.2010).
green
In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP (2015)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010))).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010).
green
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). (2014)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010).
green
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson and its Commissioner of Commerce, Michael Rothman v… (2014)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn.2010); Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 207 (Minn.2007).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. 2010); Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 207 (Minn. 2007).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010).
green
Renswick v. Wenzel (2012)
Krueger v. Zeman Const. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010).
green
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. (2012)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010).
green
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. (2012)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010).
green
Kangas v. Industrial Welders & Machinists, Inc. (2012)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010).
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn.2010) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 A rule is ambiguous if it is unclear or reasonably susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.
green
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. (2011)
Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn.2010).
See id. (“[A] plain reading of [§ 363A.17(3)] supports the conclusion that the legislature intended to provide contracting parties with the right to make and perform their contracts without being subject to illegal discrimination.”).
green
Pitman Farms v. Kuehl Poultry, LLC (2022)
See id.
green
Pitman Farms v. Kuehl Poultry LLC (2020)
See id.
green
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP (2010)
See Krueger v. Zeman Const. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858, 863-64 (Minn.2010) (noting that the MHRA specifically prohibits certain conduct in particular contexts, and declining to read a cause of action for discrimination for a person not a party to a contract, where the MHRA does not specifically provide one); see also Beardsley v. Garcia, 753 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Minn.2008) (declining to interpret the statute so as to “effectively rewrite” it because that prerogative belongs to the legi…