Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats, 633 N.W.2d 505.
-
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown
834 N.W.2d 756
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Generally, appellate courts review a district court’s decision on a motion to vacate an order or judgment for an abuse of discretion.” (stating that supreme court reviews district court’s decision to deny relief under Minn. R. Civ.
- In re the Welfare of the Child of B.J.-M. 744 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2008
- In Re Bj-M. 744 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2008
-
In re the Welfare of the Child of B.J.-M.
744 N.W.2d 669
Minn. 2008
Although the amount of process due in a particular case varies with the unique circumstances of that case, prejudice as a result of the alleged violation is an essential component of the due process analysis, see Bendorf v. Comm’r of Pub.
-
In Re Bj-M.
744 N.W.2d 669
Minn. 2008
Although the amount of process due in a particular case varies with the unique circumstances of that case, prejudice as a result of the alleged violation is an essential component of the due process analysis, see Bendorf v. Comm'r of Pub.
- Soohoo v. Johnson 731 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2007
-
Soohoo v. Johnson
731 N.W.2d 815
Minn. 2007
We have also observed that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children that should not be interfered with except for “ ‘grave and weighty reasons.’ ” ().
- Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
- In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.F. 644 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2002
-
In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.F.
644 N.W.2d 796
Minn. 2002
The court of appeals also held that the district court’s entry of default judgment violated due process because it did not adequately protect L.F.’s rights and interests and thus was not “a real judicial proceeding.” ().
- In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.F. 638 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.F. 638 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2002