Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Welfare of T. D. F., 258 N.W.2d 774.

36 citing documents.

In re the Estate of Elaine B Fredericks a/k/a Elaine Beverly Fredericks, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“The matter of continuance to permit substitution of counsel is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge; [their] decision is to be based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the request.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G.A.H. and S.T., Parents (A22-1065). In the Matter … Minn. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G.A.H. and S.T., Parents (A22-1065). In the Matter … Minn. 2023
We are also cognizant that “a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render [constitutional rights] an empty formality.” Id.; (reversing the district court’s decision, which refused to continue a hearing on whether to refer a juvenile for adult prosecution, because “[t]he inconvenience of rearranging the court calendar, the rationale advanced by the juvenile court, cannot outweigh [the juvenile’s] right to counsel”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“When denial of a continuance deprives defendant’s counsel of adequate trial preparation, we must reverse the conviction.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Timothy Poorker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Timothy Poorker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
On appeal, a defendant who sought a continuance 7 “must show that he was prejudiced to justify reversal.”
Joshua Steven Parsons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joshua Steven Parsons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Parsons argues that this case is similar to In re Welfare of T.D.F., in which the supreme court reversed a denial of a continuance because the denial deprived the defendant’s attorney of “adequate trial preparation.”
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citing City of Minneapolis v. Price, 280 Minn. 429, 435 , (holding inconvenience caused to court calendar is minor and “hardly justifies deprivation of a right as basic as the right to counsel”)).
In Re the Welfare of J.S.J. 550 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of J.S.J. 550 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Matter of Hellerud 497 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Hellerud 497 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Muntner 470 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Matter of Muntner 470 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
In Re the Welfare of L.B. 404 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Welfare of L.B. 404 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (juveniles have a right to notice of charges, counsel, confrontation and cross-examination, and the privilege against self-incrimination); -400 (Minn.1977) (notice of charges); (right to effective counsel).
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
State v. Beveridge 277 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1979
State v. Beveridge 277 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , d *199 261 (1970); and State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
In Re the Welfare of C. W. S. 267 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1978
In Re the Welfare of C. W. S. 267 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1978
In re Welfare of Raino v. State, Minn., (notice of charges); In re Welfare of T. D. F., Minn., (right to effective counsel): But, see, In re Welfare of Spencer, 288 Minn. 119 , (pretrial hearing to determine admissibility of evidence not mandatory).