Vermillion State Bank v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Schaffer

    995 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    We review this issue of statutory interpretation de novo.Vermillion State Bank v. State by Dep't of Transp. , 895 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn. App. 2017). We interpret a statute by applying the plain meaning of its terms when those terms are unambiguous in context.

  2. L. H.-S. v. N. B.

    341 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Reviewing court does not reweigh evidence to determine if it supports challenged finding

    Although Connecticut appellate courts previously have not had the opportunity to apply the last antecedent rule to the term "such" or the phrase "such person," our trial courts and other jurisdictions consistently have applied this rule to the phrase "such person," holding that the phrase modifies or refers to the phrase immediately preceding it in the statute. See, e.g., Soler v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-12-6016003-S, 2013 WL 5716857 (October 2, 2013) (56 Conn. L. Rptr. 704, 705 ); Montville v. Loiler , Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-12-6012277-S, 2013 WL 5969553 (July 10, 2013) (57 Conn. L. Rptr. 50, 52 ); see also People ex rel. Negron v. Superintendent , 36 N.Y.3d 32, 37, 160 N.E.3d 1266, 136 N.Y.S.3d 819 (2020) ; Vermillion State Bank v. Dept. of Transportation , 895 N.W.2d 269, 272–73 (Minn. App. 2017) ; State v. Wagner , 295 Neb. 132, 138–39, 888 N.W.2d 357 (2016) ; Board of Trustees of Firemen's Relief & Pension Fund v. Templeton , 184 Okla. 281, 284–85, 86 P.2d 1000 (1939). When we apply the last antecedent rule to the language of § 46b-16a (a), including the rule's well established exception when commas are present in the language at issue, the phrase "such person" clearly refers back to the applicant.

  3. McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights

    905 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Reading section 429.081 along with section 429.061 and holding the unambiguous language provides that a property owner's failure to sign a written objection and file it with the municipal clerk before the assessment hearing or with the presiding officer at the assessment hearing precludes the property owner from appealing the special assessment to district court

    "When legislative intent is clear from the statute's plain and unambiguous language, this court interprets the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory interpretation." Vermillion State Bank v. State, Dep't of Transp. , 895 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted). Minn. Stat. § 429.081 states:

  4. McCabe v. Piper

    A17-0002 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2017)

    It is a well-established principle of law that "[w]hen legislative intent is clear from the statute's plain and unambiguous language, [this court] interpret[s] the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory interpretation." Vermillion State Bank v. State, Dep't of Transp., 895 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted). When the plain meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, "the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit."