Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of J.R., 655 N.W.2d 1.

86 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. D. B., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Further, we are mindful that “[e]ach delay in the termination of a parent’s rights equates to a delay in a child’s opportunity to have a permanent home and can seriously affect a child’s chance for permanent placement.” In re Welfare of J.R., Jr.
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Welfare of J.R., Jr.
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr.
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re Welfare of J.R., Jr.
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
(emphasis added) (citing Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2); -3 (Minn. 2003) (holding that a rule of juvenile procedure setting the time limit for taking an appeal governed rather than a statute setting an identical time limit for taking an appeal); -55 (Minn.1994) (holding that a statute that regulated the procedure by which a misdemeanor
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr.
In re the Welfare of the Child of T.L.M. 804 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of T.L.M. 804 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., (holding that rule of juvenile-protection procedure concerning service of notice of appeal governs rather than provision in juvenile-protection statute).
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., (concluding that then-existing Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Procedure controlled over conflicting statutes regarding procedural law).
Vang v. State 788 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2010
Vang v. State 788 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2010
890 n. 3 (Minn.2006); see also In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., (explaining that it is only an exceptional case that leads us to invoke our inherent powers).
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
2194 ); In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., -7 (Minn.2003) (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“We must be wary of a broom that sweeps too broadly and rules that are so strictly enforced that justice has the very real potential of being denied.
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., -4 (Minn.2003) (explaining that the court invokes inherent authority in exceptional cases).
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.C.M. 758 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.C.M. 758 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
We agree with the district court’s statement that timeliness is of the utmost importance in termination of parental rights cases, because, “[e]ach delay in the termination of a parent’s rights equates to a delay in a child’s opportunity to have a permanent home.”
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., -4 (Minn.2003).
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
at 553-54 ; see also In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., (“We have consistently held that the supreme court has the primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine to regulate matters of trial and appellate procedure.”).
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
-3 (Minn.2003) (concluding that a rule of juvenile procedure setting time limit for taking an appeal governed instead of a statute setting an identical time limit for taking an appeal).
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
In re Welfare of J.R., Jr.
Marriage of Cepek v. Cepek 684 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Cepek v. Cepek 684 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., -6 (Minn.2003).
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.C. 656 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.C. 656 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(holding that Minn. R. Juv.