Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 645. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND RULES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2026)

Presumptions In Ascertaining Legislative Intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by the following presumptions:

(1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable;

(2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain;

(3) the legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this state;

(4) when a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language; and

(5) the legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 620 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 16× “16(6), and the public interest, see Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (5), favor their view of the statute, but these arguments are essentially variations of their argument about the statute's purpose.”
Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 12× “The privilege provision of the statute states, in pertinent part: The proceedings and records of a review organization shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a professional arising out of the matter or matters which are the…”
State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 16× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.17. The majority also implies that in this case the bottle was in plain sight and that under the circumstance of this case, Loge actually knew (or should have known) that the open bottle was in the truck.”
Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 12× “" Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (1) (1986). To construe Minn.”
State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 6× “7 Mauer argues that the court of appeals’ use of the “in some manner aware” standard ultimately equates “reason to know” with a possessor’s subjective belief that a pornographic work uses a minor, and the term “knowing” must also be read to require a possessor’s belief that the…”
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Ctr., Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 8× “" Minn.Stat. § 645.17(4) (2000). The court of appeals, however, is not the court of last resort with respect to a statute's construction.”
State v. Soto, 378 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 8× “As support, the state cites Minn.Stat. § 645.17(4) which reads, "When a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter *630 intends the same construction to be placed upon such language.”
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 6× “This presumption favoring the public interest, when joined with the further presumption that the legislature does not intend a result that is unreasonable, Minn. Stat. 645.17(1) (2006), supports a narrow construction of the automatic approval penalty because that penalty…”
Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 8× “See Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (1) (in interpreting statutes, courts must presume the "legislature does not intend a result that is absurd").”
Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 558 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 8× “1993); see Minn.Stat. § 645.17(1). The seat belt gag rule, Minn.”
Soohoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 645.17 (2006). Accordingly, we will uphold a statute unless the challenging party demonstrates that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Troyer v. Vertlu Mgmt. Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes, 806 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 12× “16 (2010); Minn.Stat. § 645.17 (2010). Webster’s offers two definitions of “furnish”: (1) “supply,” or (2) “to provide with what is needed.”
Show all 620 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) — 192 cases
Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 558 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1997). “1993); see Minn.Stat. § 645.17(1). The seat belt gag rule, Minn.”
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2006).
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 691 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2005).
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 1995).
State v. Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. 2000).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2) — 86 cases
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). “16(6), and the public interest, see Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (5), favor their view of the statute, but these arguments are essentially variations of their argument about the statute's purpose.”
State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2000). “See Minn.Stat. § 645.17. The majority also implies that in this case the bottle was in plain sight and that under the circumstance of this case, Loge actually knew (or should have known) that the open bottle was in the truck.”
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008).
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 776 N.W.2d 431 (Minn. 2009).
Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 1997). “See Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (1) (in interpreting statutes, courts must presume the "legislature does not intend a result that is absurd").”
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2000) — 1 case
Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2002) — 1 case
State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(2010) — 1 case
Ortell v. City of Nowthen, 814 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(3) — 46 cases
State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2007). “7 Mauer argues that the court of appeals’ use of the “in some manner aware” standard ultimately equates “reason to know” with a possessor’s subjective belief that a pornographic work uses a minor, and the term “knowing” must also be read to require a possessor’s belief that the…”
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010). “16(6), and the public interest, see Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (5), favor their view of the statute, but these arguments are essentially variations of their argument about the statute's purpose.”
State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. 2008).
State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1996).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(3)(1984) — 1 case
Quam v. State, 391 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1986).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(4) — 38 cases
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Ctr., Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002). “" Minn.Stat. § 645.17(4) (2000). The court of appeals, however, is not the court of last resort with respect to a statute's construction.”
State v. Soto, 378 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 1985). “As support, the state cites Minn.Stat. § 645.17(4) which reads, "When a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter *630 intends the same construction to be placed upon such language.”
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1990).
Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2012).
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, 705 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 2005).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(4)(1980) — 1 case
Jansen v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc., 317 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. 1982).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(5) — 19 cases
Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1999). “The privilege provision of the statute states, in pertinent part: The proceedings and records of a review organization shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a professional arising out of the matter or matters which are the…”
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2007). “This presumption favoring the public interest, when joined with the further presumption that the legislature does not intend a result that is unreasonable, Minn. Stat. 645.17(1) (2006), supports a narrow construction of the automatic approval penalty because that penalty…”
Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1989). “" Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (1) (1986). To construe Minn.”
Willems v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 333 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1983).
Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1996).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(8) — 1 case
In Re Comm'n Investigation of Issues Governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 216a.036, 724 N.W.2d 743 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(c) — 1 case
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc., 368 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
— Minn. Stat. § 645.17(l) — 4 cases
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2013).
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis, 823 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 2012).
State v. Peck, 756 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
Schmidt v. City of Columbia Heights, 696 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
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.