Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Welfare of D.M.D., 607 N.W.2d 432.

28 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. E. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. E. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
These six statutory factors “must be applied but are not a rigid, mathematical equation.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. E., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. E., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Explained In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
As we explained in In re Welfare of D.M.D., the district court has “the discretion to weigh the factors in the context they are presented.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. D. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that an appellate court “does not disturb a finding that public safety would be served by certification unless it is clearly erroneous.”) “A finding is clearly erroneous if it is manifestly contrary to the weigh t of the
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(pertaining to district court’s EJJ designation decision).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. D. T., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. V.-L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. M. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. T. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Further, “EJJ designation extends the juvenile court’s jurisdiction until the juvenile reaches 21 years of age, as opposed to the usual limit of 19 years.” In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr., see Minn. Stat. § 260B.193, subd.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(rejecting concept that district court’s weighing of public-safety factors must be made according to specific mathematical weights).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. J. M. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. J. M. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr., d 432, 437 (Minn. 2000).
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
Indeed, to “specifically delineate” the weight given to these two factors would risk turning the factors into a mathematical formula, which we explicitly rejected in
In re the Welfare of J.H. 829 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of J.H. 829 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The dissent cites a footnote from for guidance from our supreme court as to weighing of the factors.
In re the Welfare of P.C.T. 823 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of P.C.T. 823 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
4, provides that the statutory factors are a tool to determine “whether the public safety is served by certifying the matter.” We recognize that the six statutory factors “must be applied but are not a rigid, mathematical equation.” In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr.
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of B.N.S. 647 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of B.N.S. 647 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of H.S.H. 609 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of H.S.H. 609 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
2(6)(ii); (in non- *262 presumptive certification cases, prosecutor must prove public safety “will be served by either certifying a juvenile to adult court or by granting an EJJ designation”).