Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenuegreen2 sentences1999Although the plain-meaning rule is well established, “our inquiry does not end with the literal words of the statute.” Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue, 505 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Minn.1993). 1999Although the plain-meaning rule is well established, "our inquiry does not end with the literal words of the statute." Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue, 505 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Minn.1993). | 2 | 2 |
Resident v. Nootgreen2 sentences2006Id.; see also Resident v. Noot, 305 N.W.2d 311, 312 (Minn.1981) (stating that we do not defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rule when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding). 2006Id.; see also Resident v. Noot, 305 N.W.2d 311, 312 (Minn.1981) (stating that we do not defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rule when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding). | 2 | 2 |
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnershipgreen2 sentences1988See Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2d 658 (Minn.1984). 1986Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2d 658, 667 (Minn.1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Koeniggreen2 sentences2016See State v, Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816, 820 (Minn.2015) (“We do not turn to the common law definition of a word if the statute provides its own definition.”); State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn.2003) (“[U]nder a plain meaning analysis, we must éxamine the definition given by the statute for the term.... [W]e do not rely on [the dictionary] definition of [a word when] the statute provides a definition;”). 2016See State v. Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816, 820 (Minn. 2015) (“We do not turn to the common law definition of a word if the statute provides its own definition.”); State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn. 2003) (“[U]nder a plain meaning analysis, we must examine the definition given by the statute for the term. . . . [W]e do not rely on [the dictionary] definition of [a word when] the statute provides a definition.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Borggreen1 sentence2016See State v. Borg, 834 N.W.2d 194, 197 (Minn.2013) (“When construing the procedural rules, we look to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.”). | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmidgreen2 sentences2016See State v, Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816, 820 (Minn.2015) (“We do not turn to the common law definition of a word if the statute provides its own definition.”); State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn.2003) (“[U]nder a plain meaning analysis, we must éxamine the definition given by the statute for the term.... [W]e do not rely on [the dictionary] definition of [a word when] the statute provides a definition;”). 2016See State v. Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816, 820 (Minn. 2015) (“We do not turn to the common law definition of a word if the statute provides its own definition.”); State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn. 2003) (“[U]nder a plain meaning analysis, we must examine the definition given by the statute for the term. . . . [W]e do not rely on [the dictionary] definition of [a word when] the statute provides a definition.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Palmergreen1 sentence2014See State v. Palmer, 749 N.W.2d 830, 832 (Minn.App.2008). | 1 | 1 |
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathansongreen2 sentences2012Id. 2012See Nathanson, 812 N.W.2d at 77 (analyzing the language in Rule 8(a), RLPR, and explaining that the Director does not act upon his sole initiative when he acts “pursuant to a complaint”). | 1 | 1 |
Prior Lake American v. Madergreen1 sentence2004See Prior Lake Am. v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 740 (Minn.2002) (allowing closure “when a public body seeks legal advice concerning litigation strategy”); see also Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Hous. & Redev. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2001See Collins, 580 N.W.2d at 41-42 (applying plain-meaning rule in determining that statute was not ambiguous and rule of lenity did not, therefore; apply); Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1) (1998) (providing that words and phrases are to be construed “according to their common and approved usage”). | 1 | 1 |
Winters v. City of Duluthgreen2 sentences1999The Wegener court reminds us: “[C]anons of construction are not the masters of the courts, but merely their servants, to aid them in ascertaining the legislative intent; and when it is ascertained the statute must be so construed as to give effect to such intention, even if it seem[s] contrary to such rules and the strict letter of the statute.” Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , 84 N.W. 788, 789 (1901) (quotation omitted)). 1999The Wegener court reminds us: “[C]anons of construction are not the masters of the courts, but merely their servants, to aid them in ascertaining the legislative intent; and when it is ascertained the statute must be so construed as to give effect to such intention, even if it seem[s] contrary to such rules and the strict letter of the statute.” Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , 84 N.W. 788, 789 (1901) (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc.green2 sentences1999See Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (Minn.1997) (whether a phrase is ambiguous depends not upon phrase read in isolation, but rather upon the meaning assigned to the phrase in the document as a whole). 1999See Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (Minn.1997) (whether a phrase is ambiguous depends not upon phrase read in isolation, but rather upon the meaning assigned to the phrase in the document as a whole). | 1 | 1 |
Mapleton Community Home, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence1998Mapleton Community Home, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., 391 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Minn.1986). | 1 | 1 |
White Bear Lake Care Center, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfaregreen1 sentence1988See White Bear Lake, 319 N.W.2d at 8 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Wotan
green
1 sentence1998Defining “repeatedly” to mean “more than once” is reasonable under the plain meaning rule and in view of the word’s derivation from “repeat.” While “repeatedly” also is commonly used to mean “again and again,” see Wotan, 665 N.E.2d at 977 , such a definition provides insufficient guidance for a criminal statute. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. American Trucking Associations
green
2 sentences1993United States v. American Trucking Ass’n, 310 U.S. 534 , 60 S.Ct. 1059 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940). 1993United States v. American Trucking Ass’n, 310 U.S. 534 , 60 S.Ct. 1059 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.