Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Welfare of R.S., 805 N.W.2d 44.

33 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. A. B., Legal Custodian. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kristen M. Egan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And a statute’s silence “does not render a statute ambiguous unless the silence renders the statute susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” ().
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. W. and T. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-49 (Minn. 2011); In re Welfare of Child.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. M. B. and J. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re: the Petition of A. M. G. and J. L. G. to Adopt C. A. R., L. … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellant, vs. Minn. 2019
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. N. L. and W.-S. D., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. B. B. and K. C. M., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Underlying ICWA are concerns of “abusive child welfare practices that resu lted in the separation of 8 large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.” (quotation omitted); see also 25 U.S.C.
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
A17-0352 A17-0353 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 395 P.3d 286 Ariz. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. R. K. and O. A. K., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(alteration in original) (quotation omitted); see also 25 U.S.C.
A16-1012 A16-1014 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. P., B. G., C. M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1012 A16-1014 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. P., B. G., C. M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1012 A16-1014 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. S. R. and M. J. I., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. S. R. and M. J. I., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a statute “is clearly limited to specifically enumerated subjects, we do not extend its application to other subjects by process of construction.”
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a statute “is clearly limited to specifically enumerated subjects, we do not extend its application to other subjects by process of construction.”
Interstate Traffic Signs, Inc. v. Commissioner 845 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2014
Interstate Traffic Signs, Inc. v. Commissioner 845 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2014
We have recognized that “silence does not render a statute ambiguous unless the silence renders the statute susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C. 812 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
of abusive child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.” (quotation omitted).
Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199 809 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by