Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of G.L.H., 614 N.W.2d 718.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: F. F. N. M., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: F. F. N. M., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. E. S., M. W. C., and T. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Omar Kwabena Walford, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. Z., J. P. B., S. C. D. … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In addition, the Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a “heightened degree of caution in waiver procedure,” and this court has consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to rule 5.04, see State v. Garibaldi , -31 (Minn. App. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Proc edure also recognize the need for a “heightened degree of caution in waiver procedure,” d 718, 723 (Minn. 2000), stating that the district court “must ensure that defendants .
A17-0352 A17-0353 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 In juvenile-protection proceedings, “the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ); -21 (Minn. 2000) (using plain language interpretation when comparing statute and a rule of criminal procedure).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.T.P. and L.V.J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.T.P. and L.V.J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subd.
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The Minnesota Supreme Court has found the initial waiver of counsel valid in circumstances where “the district court failed to follow a particular procedure.” (citing Worthy, d at 275-76 ; ).
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
(applying clearly erroneous standard of review to district court’s finding of waiver).
State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Frieson v. Pahkala 653 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Frieson v. Pahkala 653 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Witso v. Overby 627 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 2001
Witso v. Overby 627 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 2001