Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Welfare of R.T.B.green2 sentences2017“In analyzing the best interests of the child, the court must balance three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 1992). 2016In analyzing the child’s best interests, “the court must balance three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 1992). | 11 | 11 |
In re the Welfare of J.R.B.green2 sentences2016“Best interests of the child” means “all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.511(a) (2014); see In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 905 (Minn. App. 2011) (“In analyzing a child’s best interests, the court must balance three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.”(quotations omitted)), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). 2016“In analyzing a child’s best interests, the court must balance three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” Id. at 905 (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Welfare of the Child of W.L.P.green1 sentence2015“In analyzing the best interests of the child, the court must balance three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; 11 (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of W.L.P., 678 N.W.2d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of M.P.green1 sentence2003In re Welfare of M.P., 542 N.W.2d 71, 75-6 (Minn.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Welfare of M.G.
green
1 sentence1992M.G., 407 N.W.2d at 121 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.