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

Minn. Stat. § 645.49 (2026)

Headnotes

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

The headnotes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of Minnesota Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: TCI Bus. Capital, Inc. v. Five Star Am. Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn, 890 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
TCI Bus. Capital, Inc. v. Five Star Am. Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn, 890 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “§ 645.49 (2016); see also Associated Builders & Contractors v.”
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura, 610 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 4× “See Minn. Stat. § 645.49 (1998) ("The headnotes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of Minnesota Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute.”
Enright v. Lehmann, 735 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (2006). Although it is true that “headings are relevant to legislative intent where they were present in the bill during the legislative process,” Minn.”
State v. Lucas, 589 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (1996). [1] 554 N.W.2d 755 (Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (2014). It may initially appear that the various uses of “take” are inconsistent, such that the presumption of consistent usage provides little guidance.”
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing, 777 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 2× “But Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (2008) states that "headnotes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of Minnesota Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute.”
Noske v. Friedberg, 713 N.W.2d 866 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (2004); Johnson v. State Farm.”
State v. Dao Xiong, 829 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (2012). The term “homicide” is not used in the text of any of the statutes at issue here.”
Weber v. Hvass, 626 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “If the DOC receives money for an inmate that may qualify for an exemption, the DOC sends the inmate a notification of the possible exemption, and forwards to the sender of the check a "Request for Information Regarding Offender Receipt of Funds.”
In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.M.L., 730 N.W.2d 316 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (2006) (“The head-notes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of Minnesota Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute.”
Vang v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 432 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 645.49 (1986). We find additional statutory authority for the rule in Minn.”
State v. Larsen, 901 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 645.49 (2014) (stating that headnotes are mere catchwords).”
Show all 31 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.