12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Scruggsgreen2 sentences2015L.S.H. contends that the district court erred in its custody analysis because the deputies controlled his movements and “never told him that he was free to leave and not under arrest.” But the custody analysis does not depend on “merely whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.” State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted). 2015Rather, “an interrogation is custodial if, based on all the surrounding circumstances, a 5 reasonable person would believe he or she was in police custody to the degree associated with formal arrest.” Id. (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Bjorn Michael Rydder v. Susan Marie Ryddergreen2 sentences2001Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.1995); see Friedrich, 983 F.2d at 1400 (stating under the Hague Convention, "a United States District Court has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim"). 2001Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.1995); see Friedrich, 983 F.2d at 1400 (stating under the Hague Convention, “a United States District Court has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim”). | 2 | 2 |
Emanuel Friedrich v. Jeana Michele Friedrich David Harper and Shirley Harpergreen2 sentences2001Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.1995); see Friedrich, 983 F.2d at 1400 (stating under the Hague Convention, "a United States District Court has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim"). 2001Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.1995); see Friedrich, 983 F.2d at 1400 (stating under the Hague Convention, “a United States District Court has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim”). | 2 | 2 |
Stern v. Sterngreen1 sentence2026Relying on Stern, 839 N.W.2d at 98, 104 , the district court found that here, “the third-party custody petition could not have been filed in family law court.” The district court also concluded, however, that “[t]here is no right to file a third-party petition for custody within a juvenile protection matter” because Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure 33.01, 34.02, and 35 are “an exhaustive list of the procedures available to an individual who seeks a status from which to assert a custody claim for the children or participate in a juvenile protection matter.” And the court further | 1 | 1 |
Geibe v. Geibegreen1 sentence2023See Geibe, 571 N.W.2d at 778 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sterlinggreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Sterling, 834 N.W.2d at 168 ; State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2012); State v. Thompson, 788 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2010). 6 When no formal arrest has occurred, we “examine all of the surrounding circumstances” to determine whether a person was in custody. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Sterling, 834 N.W.2d at 168 ; State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2012); State v. Thompson, 788 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2010). 6 When no formal arrest has occurred, we “examine all of the surrounding circumstances” to determine whether a person was in custody. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ousleygreen2 sentences1986See, e.g., State v. Ousley, 312 Minn. 546 , 254 N.W.2d 73 (Minn.1977). 1986See, e.g., State v. Ousley, 312 Minn. 546 , 254 N.W.2d 73 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersengreen1 sentence1985Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471, 472 (Minn.1981); Minn.Stat. § 518.185 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences1995We follow the custody test adopted in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). 1995We follow the custody test adopted in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). | 2 | 1995–2014 |
State v. Rosse
green
1 sentence2014Id. (citing Berkemer v McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 440–441, 104 S. Ct. 3138 , 3150–51 (1984)). “[That] test is whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Klecker v. Klecker
green
1 sentence1991At the time of the custody hearing, custody modification was governed by Klecker v. Klecker, 454 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.App.1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Boitnott
green
2 sentences1990Boitnott, 443 N.W.2d at 531 . 1990Boitnott, 443 N.W.2d at 531 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Beckwith v. United States
green
2 sentences1986However, since Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 1612 , 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), and Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)—which unequivocally declared that custody, not focus of suspicion, is the test — we have followed the custody test. 1986However, since Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 1612 , 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), and Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)—which unequivocally declared that custody, not focus of suspicion, is the test — we have followed the custody test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Wallin v. Wallin
green
2 sentences1986That two-part standard is set out in Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261 , 187 N.W.2d 627 (1971): In determining custody disputes between the [biological parent] of a minor child and [a third party], courts have based their decisions on two basic doctrines. 1986That two-part standard is set out in Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261 , 187 N.W.2d 627 (1971): In determining custody disputes between the [biological parent] of a minor child and [a third party], courts have based their decisions on two basic doctrines. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Oregon v. Mathiason
green
2 sentences1986However, since Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 1612 , 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), and Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)—which unequivocally declared that custody, not focus of suspicion, is the test — we have followed the custody test. 1986However, since Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 1612 , 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), and Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)—which unequivocally declared that custody, not focus of suspicion, is the test — we have followed the custody test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.