Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Welfare of J.H., 844 N.W.2d 28.

72 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: F. C. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: F. C. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. D. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. D. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As stated, “[f]or purposes of a certification determination, the charges against the child and the factual allegations of the petition are presumed true.”
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF: J.T.L., Child 875 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF: J.T.L., Child 875 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(); see also Minn. 1 Because the district court’s order restoring respondent’s firearms rights is not challenged on appeal, it is final and unaffected by this appeal.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. G. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. G. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)), r
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
-35 (Minn. 2014); see also Minn. R. Civ.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(finding level 9 offense of first-degree kidnapping an inherently “serious crime” for juvenile-certification purposes).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. M. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. M. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 28, 34 (Minn. 2014); (“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)), re
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF: D.L.D. and M.E.F., Parents 865 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF: D.L.D. and M.E.F., Parents 865 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A finding is clearly erroneous only if there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-35 (Minn. 2014); see In re 5 Welfare of S.J.T., (“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constit
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. K. R. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. K. R. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: LyNell Dupree Alexander. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: LyNell Dupree Alexander. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The goal of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.