Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Citation
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Parent Document
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Minnesota (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-03-06
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8286581/ellis-v-doe/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
Full Text
508 charsFirst, we presume that "the Legislature does not intend to abrogate the common law unless it does so 'by express wording or necessary implication.' " Siewert v. N. States Power Co. , 793 N.W.2d 272, 281 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. , 461 N.W.2d 374, 377-78 (Minn. 1990) ). Nothing in the plain language of the rent-escrow statute expressly or by necessary implication prohibits tenants from raising a habitability defense in an eviction proceeding. In fact, the statute does the opposite.