Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 12, 2014No. A12-0071Published

1DissentDietzen, Justice

I agree with Justice Lillehaug’s analysis, but would affirm for different reasons, and therefore write separately. In my view, our longstanding use of the phrase “care and support” to describe a person’s financial obligations to a child or spouse has given the phrase a special or technical meaning. Thus, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2012), I conclude that the phrase “care and support,” as used in Minn.Stat. § 609.375 (2012), unambiguously refers to a person’s obligation to pay court-ordered child or spousal support. Because Nelson knowingly omitted and failed to pay court-ordered…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
  2. Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  3. State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  4. Jane Doe v. Dean BolandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet TahoeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API