Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. P.-S. and J. D. F., Parents, 880 N.W.2d 868.

17 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Vydehi Aravalli v. Rajagopal Naga Aravalli Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And “[w]e may not base our decision on matters that were not received into evidence by the district court and that are outside the record on appeal.” (citing Thiele, d at 582-83).
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In doing so, we first determine “whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: V. R. R. and M. A. H., Parents, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: V. R. R. and M. A. H., Parents, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“We may not base our decision on matters that were not received into evidence by the district court and that are outside the record on appeal.”).
In re the Marriage of: Philip Lynn Knutson v. Alissa Ann Knutson, Polk County Human Services, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. R. T. and K. M. W., Jr., … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
App. P. 110.01 (stating that the appellate record consists of “[t]he documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings”); -83 (Minn. 1988) (holding that we generally do not consider matters not produced and received in the district court.); see In re Welfare of Child of J.P.– S., (applying this aspect of Thiele in a child-protection- related appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Jacinda Eve Mills v. Joshua James Mills Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Peter Devonn Crosby v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
18, 1987); (quoting this aspect of Tereault) (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”) .
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. F. and A. J. F., … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When “a statute is unambiguous , our role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” (quotation omitted).
In re Welfare of K. L. W. 924 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Welfare of K. L. W. 924 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
871 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).
In re the Custody of L. R. W., Child of Taylor Marie Woodside and Jeremiah Patrick Johnson Susan … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” In re Welfare of J.P.–S., (quotation omitted).
Michael Dejaris Denson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“We may not base our decision on matters that were not received into evidence by the district court and that are outside the record on appeal.”).
State of Minnesota v. Obataye Ogunmola Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Obataye Ogunmola Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
14, 2000); (declining to require district courts to consider parents’ finances when making out-of-home placement decisions because as an error-correcting court we “cannot impose such a burden on the district court in the absence of authority mandating such consideration”).