Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 646.16 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 1953 [Obsolete]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2013–2017 · leading case: State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent., 869 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent., 869 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 646.16 (2014); Axelberg v. Comm’r of Pub.”

Cont'l Hydraulics Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 832 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 646.16(1X2), (7X8) (2012). A statute is ambiguous when the language is “susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

State of Minnesota v. Ralph Joseph Boecker, 880 N.W.2d 391 (2016). “See Minn.Stat. § 646.16 (instructing courts, when interpreting ambiguous statutes, to ascertain legislative intent by considering, among other things, “the former law” and “the contemporaneous legislative history”).”

Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, MN License No.: 168KSE, VIN: 2GKFLZE3XD6336507, 892 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “-, Minn. Stat. § 646.16 (2016). If a statute is unambiguous, we look for intent nowhere else and follow its plain language.”

— Minn. Stat. § 646.16(1X2) — 1 case

Cont'l Hydraulics Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 832 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “Minn.Stat. § 646.16(1X2), (7X8) (2012). A statute is ambiguous when the language is “susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”

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.