Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 260.185 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1999 c 139 art 4 s 3]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases, 1973–2002 · leading case: In Re the Welfare of J.A.J., 545 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re the Welfare of J.A.J., 545 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 50× “See Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1(h) (1994) (court to order sex offender evaluation upon adjudication for indecent exposure, among other offenses).”

In Re the Welfare of L.K.W., 372 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 22× “Dispositional choices are enumerated in Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1984). The juvenile court is directed to use the choice of disposition judged “necessary to the rehabilitation of the child.”

Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 8× “Shortly after, Tom was transferred to the Brainerd State Hospital-Minnesota Learning Center for treatment.”

In Re the Welfare of M.A.C., 455 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 28× “Appellant also claims the trial court abused its discretion by changing its original order based on factors unrelated to his rehabilitative needs and by failing to make sufficient findings to support the new disposition.”

In Re the Welfare of D.S.F., 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 24× “Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1986). In determining what is necessary, the court must consider the severity of both the act and the proposed disposition.”

In Re the Welfare of J.L.Y., 596 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 22× “Minn. Stat. § 260.185 , subd. 1 (1998); see also Minn.”

In Re the Welfare of D.D.G., 532 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “32) for the period during which the school building was evacuated, and the reward fund offered for information leading to appellant’s apprehension ($500).”

State v. Behl, 564 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 4× “iction juvenile statute ("EJJ") and its provision that a child prosecuted as an extended jurisdiction juvenile after designation by the prosecutor in the delinquency petition is convicted of an offense after trial that is not an offense described in subdivision 1, clause (2)…”

In the Matter of the Welfare of M.A.R., 558 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “The state appeals, claiming that the court’s decision violates Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 3 (1994) and Minn.”

Matter of Welfare of CAW, 579 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “” Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1996). Alternatively stated, the legislature established a diminished culpability for adolescent offenders who are the object of a juvenile court disposition.”

In Re Welfare of J.B.A., 581 N.W.2d 37 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “argues no need exists for this court to even reach the issue of inherent judicial authority because the district court’s decision was a valid disposition under Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 3 (1996). The district court’s disposition was valid under both Minn.”

In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z., 648 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “1999) (citing Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 3 (1998); In re Welfare of J.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

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.