Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z., 648 N.W.2d 241.

32 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.D.B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.D.B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-46 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E.W.H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. P. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. R. J., Jr., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We have held that “[e]ach constitutes a distinct inquiry.” .
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court “may also consider the protection of the public in determining whether to stay adjudication.” d 241, 246 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Although a district court may consider those factors in denying a motion to continue a case, see, -46 (Minn. 2002), the plain language of the rule and the statute does not compel the reading advanced by J.C.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The interpretation of the predatory se x-offender registration statute, like interpretation of all statutes, is a question of law which we review de novo.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N District courts have “broad discretion in determining whether to continue an adjudication in a delinquency proceeding.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. H. C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. P. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.A.W., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to continue an adjudication in a delinquency proceeding.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re C. S. N. 917 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re C. S. N. 917 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
244 (Minn. App. 2002) ("A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to continue an adjudication in a delinquency proceeding."
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
rict court erred in denying hi s request for a stay of adjudication and that the district court’s disposition order must be reversed and remanded because the court failed to consider all of the factors relevant to a determination of necessity.4 “A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to continue an adjudication in a delinquency proceeding.” (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–45 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. E. M.-T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. E. M.-T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to continue an adjudication in a delinquency proceeding.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] court shall adjudicate a child delinquent or continue the case without adjudication ‘at the same time and in the same court order as the disposition.’” In re 2 Welfare of J.R.Z., (quoting rule 15.05, subdivision 1), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In Re the Welfare of M.J.M. 766 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of M.J.M. 766 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-6 (Minn.App.2002) (affirming that adjudication of juvenile not an abuse of discretion when district court acknowledged Minn.Stat.
Education Minnesota-Chisholm v. Independent School District No. 695 649 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Education Minnesota-Chisholm v. Independent School District No. 695 649 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that “the decision concerning the reach of the statute rests with the legislature”); Ullom v. Indep.