Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)

Citation: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)
Parent Document: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2016-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4252990/mary-cocchiarella-v-donald-driggs/ ↗

Full Text

652 chars

The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether, on its face, the statute is ambiguous. Am, Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn.2001). A statute is ámbiguous only when it is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”. Id.' (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a statute is not ambiguous, we interpret the words of the statute according to their plain and ordinary meaning. See Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2014) (requiring that statutory words be interpreted “according to their common and approved usage”); Hous & Redevelopment Auth. of Duluth v. Lee, 852 N.W.2d 683, 690 (Minn.2014).

Other Sections in This Document (444)

Full Text