Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 645.20 (2026)
Construction Of Severable Provisions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless there is a provision in the law that the provisions shall not be severable, the provisions of all laws shall be severable. If any provision of a law is found to be unconstitutional and void, the remaining provisions of the law shall remain valid, unless the court finds the valid provisions of the law are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the void provisions that the court cannot presume the legislature would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or unless the court finds the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Chapman v. Comm'r of Revenue, 651 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2002).
Chapman v. Comm'r of Revenue, 651 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2002). “Minn. Stat. § 645.20 (2000). Section 645.”
State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005). “See Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (2004). This is so because in it, the legislature expressly conditioned the imposition of a 30-year sentence on a judicial finding that Blakely does not permit a sentencing judge to make: that "the crime involved an aggravating factor that would provide…”
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura, 610 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2000). “The court of appeals then severed the amendment pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (1998) permitting severance of an unconstitutional provision where it is unconnected to the remaining provisions of the law.”
Cambridge State Bank v. Roemer, 457 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 1990). “Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (1988) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: If any provision of a law is found to be unconstitutional and void, the remaining provisions of the law shall remain valid, unless the court finds the valid provisions of the law are so essentially and…”
Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Hopkins, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Minnesota 2005). “Minn. Stat. § 645.20 ; see Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v.”
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota, 883 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2016). “”); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.20 (2014) (“[T]he provisions of all laws shall be severable.”
State v. Shattuck, 689 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 2004). “See Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (2002); City of Duluth v.”
Back v. State, 902 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2017). “The opinion of the court relies on the first exception, asserting that an entire subsection in subdivision 1 of the statute must be severed because the Legislature intended to give prosecutors a “critical role” at this stage of the exoneration process.”
Deegan v. State, 711 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 2006). “Minnesota Statutes § 645.20 (2004) provides that a court may sever any unconstitutional provision from a statute and leave the remaining language intact, unless the legislature has specified that the provision is not severable or it is apparent that the legislature would not…”
Est. of Jones by Blume v. Kvamme, 529 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1995). “Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (1994). [3] Clause (2) contains a dollar amount and a "to the extent reasonably necessary" phrase.”
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017). “” Minn. Stat. § 645.20 (2016). If a statute has unconstitutional applications, they are sever-able from the constitutional applications.”
State v. Cannady, 727 N.W.2d 403 (Minn. 2007). “Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (2004); State v. Shattuck, 704 N.”
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.