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

Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2026)

Construction Of Provisos And Exceptions

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

Provisos shall be construed to limit rather than to extend the operation of the clauses to which they refer. Exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1943–2025 · leading case: Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 8× “2010); accord Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2012). The current text of subdivision 1 was enacted in 2003.”
Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 4× “According to Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (2010), “[exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others.”
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young Am. v. Gordon Brown, 849 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 4× “1990); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2012). Accordingly, we do not exempt transfers made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree from the statutory definition of “transfer” in Minn.”
Rooney v. Rooney, 669 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Because the statute refers to "any person or entity" providing funds "including" those listed in the statute, we reject CHOF's attempt to invoke Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (2002), and the concept of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius to argue that an entity not listed in the statute…”
Marriage of Janssen v. Janssen, 331 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 4× “Such a result we consider to be contrary to Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (1982) and well-settled rules of statutory construction.”
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 878 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 4× “This is a mutation of the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the canon of construction (to be applied only after ambiguity is found) that “[e]xceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others,” Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2014). Indeed, the rule…”
Investigation & Determination of an Appropriate Unit & Exclusive Rep. Hill-Murray Fed'n of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray High Sch., Maplewood, 487 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (1990) ("Exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others.”
Poehler v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 899 N.W.2d 135 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 2× “2010)); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2016) (“Provisos shall be construed to limit rather than to extend *149 the operation of the clauses to which they refer.”
State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (2010) (codifying expressio unius).”
Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, the legislature carved one exception from the otherwise broad immunity afforded by section 3.736, subd.”
River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, 704 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (2004) ("Exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others.”
Smith v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 455 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “" Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (1988). Appellants' argument is flawed.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
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.