Baker v. Baker (1992)

See Baker, 494 N.W.2d at 286 ("the availability of extraordinary relief intended by the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act is utterly negated by tying to it unnecessary external procedural requirements").

In Baker v. Baker, we discussed the purpose of the Act, noting the large number of assaults on domestic abuse victims by their partners and the correlating need for assistance and shelter. 494 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Minn.1992).

Section 518B.01 “neither establishes nor terminates a legal relationship.” Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Minn.1992), superseded by statute as stated in Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d at 212.

Safety, 727 N.W.2d 410, 416-17 (Minn.2007) (holding that the “state has a compelling interest” in protecting “the citizens of Minnesota” from individuals who “pose a severe threat to the[ir] health and safety” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 288 (Minn.1992) (observing that the State has a “strong interest in preventing violence in a domestic setting”).

Our court has already indicated in broad terms that the Act was designed to protect victims — “[It] was enacted in 1979 as one way to protect victims of domestic as sault.” Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Minn.1992) (noting that the Act was “designed to curtail the harm one household member may be doing to the other”); see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 682 N.W.2d 206, 209, 213 (Minn.2001) (explaining the purpose of the Act is “to provide speedy, effective relief to vic…

Governmental Interest The Minnesota Supreme Court has declared that the state has a “strong interest in preventing violence in a domestic setting.” Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 288 (Minn.1992).

L.Q. at 850 (noting range of five to twenty days); Pendleton, 1992 WL 75920 , at *9 (fourteen days); Kampf v. Kampf, 237 Mich.App. 377 , 603 N.W.2d 295, 299 (1999) (five to fourteen days); Baker, 494 N.W.2d at 290 (seven days); State ex rel.

Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 287 (Minn.1992).

Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Minn.1992).

Relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 287-88 (Minn.1992), Gada argues that best-interests findings were not required.

See Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(4) (1994); Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 290 (Minn. 1992).

See, e.g., Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 90 , 98 S.Ct. 948, 955 , 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978) (academic dismissal); Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 115 , 97 S.Ct. 1723, 1729 , 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (summary suspension of drivers’ license); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 340 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 905 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (termination of disability benefits); Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 288 (Minn.1992) (ex parte temporary custody order). *566 Humenansk…

Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d at 209 ; see also Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Minn.1992) (superseded in part by statute in Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 ).

See Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 288 (Minn.1992).

See Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 287 (Minn.1992) (stating that the “main factors to consider are: (1) the private interests to be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of these interests and the probable value of additional safeguards; and (3) the government interests involved”).

See also Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 287 (Minn.1992); State ex rel.

See also Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 287 (Minn. 1992); State ex rel.

Whalen v. Whalen, we recognized that district courts have broad equitable powers to act quickly in emergency- domestic abuse situations, and need not strictly adhere to statutory procedures. 594 N.W.2d 277, 280-281 (Minn.App.1999) (declining to add civil notice procedures to those already provided in the Domestic Abuse Act); see also Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282, 287 (Minn.1992) (“The requirements of due process are flexible and call for such procedural protections as the …