Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2026)
Legislative Intent Controls
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.
When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.
When the words of a law are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other matters:
(1) the occasion and necessity for the law;
(2) the circumstances under which it was enacted;
(3) the mischief to be remedied;
(4) the object to be attained;
(5) the former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;
(6) the consequences of a particular interpretation;
(7) the contemporaneous legislative history; and
(8) legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,587
cases (105 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010).
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). “1998) (we avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which we may decide a case).”
State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. 2009). “" Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008); see also Loge, 608 N.”
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2016). “2012) (citing 5 Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)). In accordance with our canons of interpretation, we construe technical words and phrases “according to [their] special meaning,” and other words and phrases according to their “common and approved usage.”
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019). “2017), to "ascertain and effectuate" the Legislature's intent, Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018). "When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity," the plain language of the statute controls.”
State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 2003). “Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2002); Chapman v. Comm'r of Revenue, 651 N.”
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014). “2010); accord Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012). If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the unambiguous language of the statute, we apply the statute according to its plain meaning.”
Swanson v. Brewster, 784 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2010). “; see also Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008). A statute's meaning is ambiguous if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001). “" Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2000). When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.”
Curtis G. & Stacy S. Marks v. Comm'r of Revenue, Relator., 875 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2016). “2010); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014). “When the words of a statute in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,” we must give effect to the plain meaning of the law.”
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010). “Minn.Stat. § 645.16. In construing the language of a statute, we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”
Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 2013). “2012)(quoting Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2012)). The first step in statutory interpretation is to “ ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
Lietz v. N. States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 2006). “2d at 879 ; see Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2004). This court will not look beyond the plain language of the statute if the words of the statute are "clear and free from all ambiguity.”
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(1) — 16 cases
Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 2013). “2012)(quoting Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2012)). The first step in statutory interpretation is to “ ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). “1998) (we avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which we may decide a case).”
State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. 2009). “" Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008); see also Loge, 608 N.”
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010). “Minn.Stat. § 645.16. In construing the language of a statute, we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”
Curtis G. & Stacy S. Marks v. Comm'r of Revenue, Relator., 875 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2016). “2010); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014). “When the words of a statute in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,” we must give effect to the plain meaning of the law.”
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(2) — 6 cases
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 2013).
In Re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Kowski, 423 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
Culver v. Culver, 771 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
Munoz v. Kihlgren, 661 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(3) — 11 cases
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Perry, 749 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2008).
Tuma v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 386 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1986).
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 2013).
Anderson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
Gopher Oil Co., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 757 F. Supp. 998 (D. Minnesota 1991).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(4) — 13 cases
Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010). “Minn.Stat. § 645.16. In construing the language of a statute, we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.”
State v. Behl, 564 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1997).
Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. 2000).
In Re Certificate of Need for Constr. of an Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 501 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
Petition of D & a Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(5) — 35 cases
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 2013).
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 2005).
State v. Fleming, 724 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Oanes, 543 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
North River Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d 109 (Minn. 1984).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(6) — 28 cases
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). “1998) (we avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which we may decide a case).”
Lietz v. N. States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 2006). “2d at 879 ; see Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2004). This court will not look beyond the plain language of the statute if the words of the statute are "clear and free from all ambiguity.”
Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. 2010).
Tuma v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 386 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1986).
In re the Welfare of J.J.P., 831 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 2013).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(7) — 20 cases
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 1995).
Herrly v. Muzik, 374 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1985).
Handle With Care, Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 406 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1987).
Ubel v. State, 547 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1996).
State v. Poole, 489 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(8) — 20 cases
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). “1998) (we avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which we may decide a case).”
In Re the Welfare of J.B., 782 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2010).
Emerson v. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 199, 809 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2012).
Curtis G. & Stacy S. Marks v. Comm'r of Revenue, Relator., 875 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2016). “2010); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014). “When the words of a statute in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,” we must give effect to the plain meaning of the law.”
Enter. Leasing Co., Doing Bus. as Enter. Rent-A-Car, a Minnesota Corp. v. Metro. Airports Comm'n, a Pub. Corp., 250 F.3d 1215 (8th Cir. 2001).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.16(l) — 7 cases
State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. 2009). “" Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008); see also Loge, 608 N.”
Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 2013). “2012)(quoting Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2012)). The first step in statutory interpretation is to “ ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014). “2010); accord Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012). If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the unambiguous language of the statute, we apply the statute according to its plain meaning.”
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing, 777 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. 2010).
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd., 565 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.