Cited by

of J.B., (applying Midway in a termination- of-parental-rights case), petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

of J.B., (applying Midway in a termination-of-parental-rights context); see also In re Welfare of Child.

of J.B., (citing Midway in a juvenile-protection case).

(applying Midway in a termination-of-parental-rights case), petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

of J.B., (applying the rule from Midway in a termination-of-parental-rights case), rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

of J.B., ( applying Midway in a termination -of-parental-rights case) , petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

The weight given to expert testimony “is ultimately the province of the fact-finder.”

201(c); (stating “[e]videntiary rulings are discretionary with the district court”), petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

of J.B., (citing this aspect of Midway Center in a child-protection matter).

petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005) (stating “[e]videntiary rulings are discretionary with the district court”).

of J.B., d 160, 167 (Minn. App. 2005) (“The weight to be given any testimony, including expert testimony, is ultimately the province of the fact-finder.”).

of J.B., (applying Midway Ctr.

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., (stating that, to obtain relief on appeal, an appellant must show both error by the district court and prejudice to the appellant arising from that error); (applying Midway in a TPR appeal), rev. dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005); -76 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating that, while “[i]t was a mistake for the [district] court .

Waters v. Fiebelkorn , -65 (Minn. 1944) (stating that appellant bears burden of showing error on appeal); (ignoring an error as harmless in a voluntary termination of parental rights proceeding); (noting that the erroneous admission of evidence which is cumulative to other admissible evidence is harmless); In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T.

(applying this aspect of Wintz in a TPR appeal), review dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue absent adequate briefing); (citing this aspect of Wintz in TPR appeal).

See, (using a pre-statutory definition of “qualified expert witness”).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); (citing this aspect of Wintz in a TPR appeal).

(citing this aspect of Wintz in a termination of parental rights appeal).

v. Midway Ctr., Inc. , (stating that, to obtain relief on appeal, an appellant must show both error by the district court and prejudice to the appellant arising from that error); (applying Midway in an appeal of TPR); -76 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating that, although “[i]t was a mistake for the trial court .

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., (stating that, to obtain relief on appeal, an appellant must show both error by the district court and prejudice to the appellant arising from that error); (applying Midway in an appeal of a termination-of -parental-rights case); D.J.N., d at 175-76 (stating that, although “[i]t was a mistake for the trial court .

(rejecting parent’s request for more time to work 8 on a case plan and confirming that “active efforts” were provided even though the parent refused to accept them).1 In sum, father’s case-plan requirements were reasonable.

(affirming district court’s ruling that active -efforts standard was met by county’s offering appropriate services to a parent who either rejected them or failed to engage in them successfully).

d 160, 166 (Minn. App. 2005) (citing this aspect of Midway in a termination of rights appeal).

see also Pekarek v. Wilking , (reviewing district court determination regarding p arties’ stipulation for abuse of discretion).

(ruling that “the district court did not abuse its discretion by bifurcating mother’s proceeding from father’s proceeding and allowing mother’s proceeding to proceed in a timely fashion.”).

review dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).

The issue as to subparagraph (2) therefore is not properly before us. (declining to address argument for which father cited no authority).

(“[T]he weight to be given testimony of [a] witness is [ultimately] within the province of the trial judge as fact- finder.”).

() (“The weight to be given any testimony, including expert testimony, is ultimately the province of the fact- finder.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.