Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Soohoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815.

144 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Constitutionality of the test-refusal statute “The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that [this court] review[s] de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Jay Boyd, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Jay Boyd, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 815, 821 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
“The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.” *182 (Minn.2007).
Ramirez v. Luna 830 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Ramirez v. Luna 830 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has also recognized that there are circumstances “when the state may constitutionally intrude upon a fit parent’s right to the care, custody, and control of the parent’s child.” (discussing a third party’s right to visitation with a child).
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Mitchell v. Smith 817 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Mitchell v. Smith 817 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
2054, 2060 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000)
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
(reading the requirement in Minn.Stat.
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review when fundamental rights are at issue.”).
Givens v. Darst 800 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Givens v. Darst 800 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
2054, 2060-61 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (plurality) (holding that grandparent visitation must satisfy the due process protection in the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children); (“[A] parent’s *656 right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.”).
Richards v. Reiter 796 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2011
Richards v. Reiter 796 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2011
(“A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.” (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 , 120 S.Ct.
Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(holding that “a state, in its role as parens patriae, has a compelling interest in promoting relationships among those in recognized family units ...
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that successful facial challenge requires proof that statute is not valid under any set of circumstances).
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis 766 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2009
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis 766 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2009
2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)); (stating that a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute requires a showing that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid).
Morris v. State 765 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2009
Morris v. State 765 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2009
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of B.J.B. 747 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of B.J.B. 747 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Welfare of Children of N.F. 735 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Welfare of Children of N.F. 735 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children that should not be interfered with except for grave and weighty reasons).
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“[P]roceedings that ‘employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to subjective values of the judge’ magnify the risk for erroneous deprivation of private interests.” (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 762 , 102 S.Ct.