Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764.

142 citing documents.

Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
(quoting State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370, 375-76, 13 Gil.
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. Joseph Francis D'Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. Joseph Francis D'Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Appeal by Tami L. Kreuzer of the Maltreatment Determination and Order to Forfeit … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Appeal by Tami L. Kreuzer of the Maltreatment Determination and Order to Forfeit … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although the maltreatment of a vulnerable adult statute is not in the criminal code and does not necessarily result in a criminal conviction, the action is initiated by the state through DHS and Minnesota Statutes section 245A.07, subdivision 3(c)(4) (2014), permits the commissioner to impose a substantial fine of $1,000 as a penalty.2 -91 (Minn. 2014) (analyzing whether 50-year order for protection created criminal penalty for purposes of ex post facto challenge to constitutionality of statute)
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
Our precedent further establishes that “[o]nly the most extreme instances of governmental misconduct” can 5 By contrast, procedural due process, in general, requires that a defendant have “notice and an ‘opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.6, 799 n.4, 805-06 n.2 (Minn. 2014).
In re: the Petition of K. P. W. and J. L. H. to Adopt S. Q.-B. W., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: the Petition of K. P. W. and J. L. H. to Adopt S. Q.-B. W., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In general, a parent has a liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children.” d 764, 785 (Minn. 2014) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 870 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 870 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2015
Michelle Davidsavor, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michelle Davidsavor, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The fundamental requirements of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremy Michael Bilder. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremy Michael Bilder. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION Standard of Review “The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that [this court] review[s] de novo.”
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
an the United States Constitution: (1) when the United States Supreme Court “ ‘has made a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions’ and we ‘discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure’ (2) when the Court has “retrenched on a Bill of Rights issue”; or (3) when the Court precedent “ ‘does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.’ ” (quoting Kahn, d at 828 ).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Heidi Anne Vizuete and In re the Marriage of Miriam Rose … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Heidi Anne Vizuete and In re the Marriage of Miriam Rose … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(interpreting the phrase “minor children” in the context of constitutional challenges to an order for protection, to apply only until the child reaches the age of 18, at which point the child will no longer be a minor).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “interpreted Minnesota’s Double Jeopardy Clause to be coextensive with its federal counterpart.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. 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. Steven Robert Latham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Robert Latham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
UNPUBLISHED OPINION HUDSON, Judge This matter is on remand from the Minnesota Supreme Court