Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 257. CHILDREN; CUSTODY, LEGITIMACY
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 257.19 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1971 c 143 s 16]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1950–1989 · leading case: State v. Sax, 42 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1950).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sax, 42 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1950). · cites it 16× “257 (§ 257.19), charging defendant with being the father of her child.”
Johnson v. Hunter, 447 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 3× “In 1969, Stephanie Johnson Saunders, as complaining witness, and the State of Minnesota brought a paternity action in Hennepin County District Court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 257.19 (1969) (repealed 1971) against respondent Terry Lee Hunter as the alleged father of Saunders’…”
State v. E. A. H., 75 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 1956). · cites it 3× “Section 257.19 provides that upon complaint of a mother and after the filing of the complaint' with the court “The county attorney may then bring the defendant before the judge of the court at any time for the adjudication of the paternity of such child and the making of an…”
State v. Carmena, 189 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 1971). · cites it 7× “1969, § 257.19. Defendant was required to post a bond of $500 under Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Barrett v. Korbel, 221 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 1974). “1969, § 257.19. Defendant, who was found by a jury to be the father of complainant’s child, contends, among other things, that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, that the prosecutor acted improperly, that the complainant’s testimony lacked credibility, and that the…”
State v. EAH, 75 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 1956). · cites it 3× “Section 257.19 provides that upon complaint of a mother and after the filing of the complaint with the court "The county attorney may then bring the defendant before the judge of the court at any time for the adjudication of the paternity of such child and the making of an order…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.