State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “when ‘take’ and ‘taking’ are used in the same context, they have the same basic definition”
• noting that “a legislature’s use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes” and “different tenses exist to express differences in the time or duration of an action” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “a legislature’s use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes” and “different tenses exist to express differences in the time or duration of an action” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that a statute is unambiguous when only one reasonable interpretation exists
• stating that the “legislature’s ‘use of a verb D-5 tense is significant in construing statutes’ ” (quoting United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992)); see also United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992
• interpreting provision in chapter 97B by referring to provisions in chapter 97A

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).