Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2026)
Uniform Laws
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Laws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case: Citizens State Bank Norwood Young Am. v. Gordon Brown, 849 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 2014).
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young Am. v. Gordon Brown, 849 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 2014). “2002) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2012)). “Accordingly, we give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.”
Enright v. Lehmann, 735 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 2007). “” Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2006). While Minnesota’s MPAA was not initially enacted as part of the probate code, the legislature’s decision to move it to the probate code indicates the legislature’s desire that Minnesota courts interpret the MPAA consistently with those of other…”
Spaeth v. Warren, 478 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 257.60(3) (1990). [3] We also note that the Uniform Act's paramount concern for the child's best interest should be accorded great weight as the legislature has directed that uniform laws shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the…”
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Props., LLC, 903 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). “8-101 ); see generally Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2016) (stating that “[l]aws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them”).”
Bloomquist v. First Nat'l Bank of Elk River, 378 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “However, we are guided by Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (1984) in construing this phrase.”
City of Rochester v. Kottschade, 896 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 2017). “29(a) (explaining that when “applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it”); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2016) (“Laws uniform with those of…”
Truesdale v. Friedman, 132 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 1965). “" Section 645.22 states: "Laws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.”
Stowell v. Cloquet Co-Op Credit Union, 557 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 1997). “See Minn.Stat. § 645.22 (“Laws uniform with those in other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.”
In Re Welfare of Child. of D.M.T.-r., 802 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). “Because uniform laws such as the UC-CJEA are intended to encourage the development of a common jurisprudence *764 among the courts adopting them, we give great weight to the interpretation and application of a uniform law by other state judiciaries.”
In Re Guardianship of Wells, 733 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). “” Minn.Stat. § 645.22 (2006). But only two other states have adopted this law, and neither state’s caselaw sheds light on the question before us.”
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB, 848 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). “” Minn.Stat. § 645.22 (2012). . We are aware of one case in which a court has concluded that the inclusion of a draft letter as an e-mail attachment does not satisfy the signature requirement.”
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik, 897 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). “2015) (construing portion of Uniform Probate Code consistently “with other jurisdictions that have adopted a similar provision” of the Code); see Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2016) (“Laws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general…”
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.