Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r'" <br />\. <br /> <br />C". <br /> <br />The object of statutory interpretation "is to give effect to the legislature's intent as <br /> <br />expressed in the l:mguage of the statute." Pususta v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 632 N.W.2d <br /> <br />549,552 (Minn. 2001) (citing Minn. Stat. ~ 645.16). A court must "presume the legislature's <br /> <br />choice of words indicate its intent." In re Hildebrandt, 701 N.W.2d 293,299 (Minn. App. 2005): <br /> <br />When the legislature employs "a term of art," the court must assume "it intends to use the <br /> <br />accepted definition of that term." State v. Cannady, 727 N.W.2d 403,407 (Minn. 2007) (citing <br /> <br />Minn. & Pac. RR Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn. 13, 19 (2 Gil. 1) (1858)). If a statute is clear and <br /> <br />unambiguous, the court cannot c011,sider evidence beyond its plain language. Lietz v. Northern <br /> <br />States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865,870 (Minn. 2006). <br /> <br />. <br />As used in Minnesota law, "town" is a term of art, describing a specific form oflocal <br /> <br />government. See Minn. Stat. Ch. 365 - 368. See also Black's La~ Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) <br />(defining "town" as "[a] center of population that is larger and more fully developed than a <br /> <br />village, bllt that (traditionally speaking) is not incorporated as a city") (emphasis added). The. <br /> <br />word appears in numerous Minnesota statutes. Plaintiffs have identified no Minnesota statute <br /> <br />that uses the word."town" other than to connote the form of local government described in <br /> <br />Chapters 365 - 368, headed by a town board, and altematelyreferred to as a "township." See, <br /> <br />e.g., Minn. Stat. ~ 477A.Oll, subd. Ib ('''Town' means a township"). <br /> <br />In previous decisions, the Minnesota Supreme Court had held that "the term 'town,' <br /> <br /> <br />when used in a general statute, may include cities, unless the contrary appears from the whole <br /> <br />statute to have been the intent of the legislature." Odegaard v. City of Albert Lea. 23 N.W. 52~, <br /> <br />526 (Minn. 1885) (citations omitted). See also State v. Village of Chisholm, 217 N.W. 681,683 <br /> <br />(Minn. 1928); KlelJ"e v. Gard, 123 N.W. 665,666 (Minn. 1909); Tucker v. Board ofComm'rs, <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />97 N.W. 103, 104 (Minn. 1903). These decisions relied on "a well-settled [common law] rule of <br /> <br />4 <br />