pari materia doctrine in Minnesota

2016But the in pari materia doctrine is a tool for interpreting ambiguous statutory language, State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Minn. 1999), and we conclude that section 56.01(a) is unambiguous.

2006Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State by Dept. of Public Safety, 352 N.W.2d 402, 404 (Minn.1984) (explaining the doctrine of in pari materia); see also State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Minn. 1999) (“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).

2017See, e.g., Nelson, 842 N.W.2d at 444 ; State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 485-87 (Minn. 2013) (holding that the communicable-disease statute was ambiguous, and ruling for the defendant based on the rule of lenity and relevant legislative history); State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606, 611 (Minn. 2011) (ruling for the defendant in light of an ambiguous criminal statute based on the doctrine of in pari materia and the rule of lenity).

2016In pari materia is a canon of statutory interpretation that “allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.” State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433, 441-42 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

2017After concluding that the statutory language was ambiguous, we applied the doctrine of in pari materia and the rule of lenity, and we concluded that “the definition of the phrase ‘full term of imprisonment’ in Minn. Stat. § 609.221 , subd. 2(b), means two-thirds of a defendant’s executed prison sentence.” Leathers, 799 N.W.2d at 611 .

2017See, e.g., Nelson, 842 N.W.2d at 444 ; State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 485-87 (Minn. 2013) (holding that the communicable-disease statute was ambiguous, and ruling for the defendant based on the rule of lenity and relevant legislative history); State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606, 611 (Minn. 2011) (ruling for the defendant in light of an ambiguous criminal statute based on the doctrine of in pari materia and the rule of lenity).

1999In pari materia is a tool of statutory construction applicable “in certain instances to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.” McKown, 475 N.W.2d at 67 .

1994See, e.g., McKown, 475 N.W.2d at 65 (rules of statutory construction, including doctrine of in pari materia, only may be used to interpret ambiguous statutes). *494 DECISION Minn.Stat. § 169.791, subd. 2 unambiguously establishes that failure to provide proof of insurance is a strict liability offense when the driver is the owner of the car.

2017See, e.g., Nelson, 842 N.W.2d at 444 ; State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 485-87 (Minn. 2013) (holding that the communicable-disease statute was ambiguous, and ruling for the defendant based on the rule of lenity and relevant legislative history); State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606, 611 (Minn. 2011) (ruling for the defendant in light of an ambiguous criminal statute based on the doctrine of in pari materia and the rule of lenity).

2016See State v. Grigsby, 818 N.W.2d 511, 517 (Minn. 2012) (stating that rule of lenity does not apply if challenged statute is unambiguous); State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Minn. 1999) (stating that doctrine of in pari materia is not used absent statutory ambiguity).

2015See McNeice v. City of Minneapolis, 250 Minn. 142, 146-47 , 84 N.W.2d 232, 236 (1957) (applying the definition of gambling devices in section 325.53 to gambling devices in sections 614.06 and 614.07).

2015See McNeice v. City of Minneapolis, 250 Minn. 142, 146-47 , 84 N.W.2d 232, 236 (1957) (applying the definition of gambling devices in section 325.53 to gambling devices in sections 614.06 and 614.07).

2010See In re Welfare of Children of N.F., 749 N.W.2d 802, 807 (Minn.2008) (noting doctrine of in pari materia, by which statutes with common subject matter and purposes are construed together).

2006Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State by Dept. of Public Safety, 352 N.W.2d 402, 404 (Minn.1984) (explaining the doctrine of in pari materia); see also State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Minn. 1999) (“The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.”).

2006Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State by Dept. of Public Safety, 352 N.W.2d 402, 404 (Minn.1984) (explaining the doctrine of in pari materia ); see also State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Minn. 1999) ("The doctrine of in pari materia is a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.").

1999State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 914 (Minn.1996). i On appeal to this court, Lucas does not claim that the language of Minn.Stat. § 169.685, subd. 5(b) is ambiguous, and he correctly concedes that the doctrine of in pari materia does not apply to this case.

1995Cf. Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428, 435 , 57 N.W.2d 254, 261 (1953) (under doctrine of in pari materia, different legislative acts involving single subject must be construed to avoid irreconcilable differences and conflicts).

1995Cf. Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428, 435 , 57 N.W.2d 254, 261 (1953) (under doctrine of in pari materia, different legislative acts involving single subject must be construed to avoid irreconcilable differences and conflicts).