Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Welfare of J.J.P., 831 N.W.2d 260.

76 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Generally, the constitution empowers the legislative branch to legislate or make the laws, the executive branch to execute or carry out the laws, and the judicial branch to interpret and enforce the laws.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.J.F.-D., Child Minn. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.J.F.-D., Child Minn. 2024
See, (rejecting the State’s claim that the phrase “the court may expunge the adjudication of delinquency” permits the expungement of only judicial, rather than executive, files, because that interpretation fails to effectuate the word “expunge”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. O. and D. W., Commissioner of Human … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. O. and D. W., Commissioner of Human … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. Minn. 2023
“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In other words, if a statute is unambiguous, the appellate court applies its plain meaning and does not “explore [the statute’s] spirit or purpose.” Cocchiarella, d at 624 ().
John Joseph Wawersich, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If the statute is unambiguous, appellate courts apply the plain language and do not “explore [the statute’s] spirit or purpose.” Cocchiarella , d at 624 ().
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Id.; 3 (“[N]o branch of government may usurp or diminish the powers committed to another co- equal branch of government.”).
Minn. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. K. (Deceased) and J. D. K., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
” , 897 (Minn. App. 2018) (
Minn. 2020
Id.; (applying a technical definition to a legal phrase based on its special meaning in the court system), superseded by statute as stated in
Tyler Halva, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 260, 264 (Minn. 2013).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bergman v. Caulk 931 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bergman v. Caulk 931 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co ., , 140 (Minn. 2017) ( , 264, 266 (Minn. 2013) ).
In re G. J. Parents F. 920 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re G. J. Parents F. 920 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
269 (Minn. 2013) (stating that statutory language authorizing a district court to act when "it deems advisable" grants the district court discretion to determine when expungement of an order adjudicating the juvenile delinquent is appropriate).
A18-0333 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that statutory language authorizing a district c ourt to act when “it deems advisable” grants the district court discretion to determine when expungement of an order adjudicating the juvenile delinquent is appropriate).
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
In interpreting a statute* we give words and phrases “their plain and ordinary meaning.”
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
In re Welfare of 266 (Minn. 2013).
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
“In interpreting statutory language, we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning;”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 260, 264 (Minn. 2013).
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. M. J. R. D. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. M. J. R. D. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
& n.2 (Minn. 2013) (addressing only statutory expungement where juvenile “petitioned the district court for expungement solely under the court’s statutory authority” and “did not invoke the court’s inherent authority to order expungement”).
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
In re, Welfare of J.J.P.
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The statutory balancing test “weighs the petitioner’s interest in pursuing education, employment, or housing without barriers imposed by delinquency-adjudication records, against the public’s interest in accessing those records to evaluate the potential public safety risk posed by the petitioner.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Welfare of J.J.P.
Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com 880 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2016
Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com 880 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.M.M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.M.M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“By its very terms, chapter 609A cannot control a petition brought under section 260B.198, subdivision 6 to expunge a delinquency- adjudication order.”).
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
500, LLC, d at 291 (employing the technical meaning of the word “zoning”); .(observing in dicta that “assessment,” a technical, legal term, had been defined.-broadly in other tax cases); (stating that we interpret technical words according to their specialized meaning).
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler Minn. Ct. App. 2016