DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151.

118 citing documents.

  • Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).
  • County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    While a “general freedom from governmental intrusion in child-rearing decisions” and a “right to familial privacy” that is “not absolute” have been recognized, review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), here, those rights and freedoms conflict with the child’s paramount right to support and the public protection of the child’s best interests.
  • State Ex Rel. Jarvela v. Burke 678 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State Ex Rel. Jarvela v. Burke 678 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Cf. Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (stating that minor children have a “basic right” to support from their parents and that in matters of support amount, welfare of child is paramount concern); -64 (Minn.App.2000) (recognizing that parent has fundamental right to travel, but holding that conditioning sole physical custody on return to Minnesota is not violation of that right because it is justified by state’s compelling interest in protecting best interest of child), review denied (Minn. M
  • In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    ■ “When there is an allegation of interference by the state with a protected right of privacy,” we must, “balance the interest in the privacy against the state’s need to intrude on that privacy.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).
  • Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 642 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 642 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    See, -64 (Minn.App.2000) (best interests of child is compelling state interest justifying infringement on a mother’s fundamental right to travel), review denied (Minn. May, 16, 2000); (best interests of children took precedence over father’s First Amendment freedom of r
  • J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    -59 (Minn.App.2000) (explaining that a non-parent third party has standing to bring custody action pursuant to Minn.Stat.
  • Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    -59 (Minn.App.2000) (explaining that a non-parent third party has standing to bring custody action pursuant to Minn.Stat.
  • Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001