Skip to main content

Larson v. State

Citations

  • 790 N.W.2d 700
  • 2010 Minn. LEXIS 680
  • 2010 WL 4643074

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that when state holds an easement because of condemnation, it holds the easement “in its entirety” and the unused portion is not subject to discharge under condemnation statutes
  • stating that a statute is ambiguous if it “is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation”
  • stating that “the grammatical rule of the last antecedent . . . instructs that a limiting phrase . . . ordinarily modifies only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows”
  • \[A] limiting phrase ... ordinarily modifies only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.\
  • “[A] rule of liberal construction does not apply where ... a statute is unambiguous on its face.”
  • “The written instrument creating the easement ... defines the scope and extent of the interest in land.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

60 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.