In Re Welfare of J.B.A.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAROLD W. SCHULTZ, Judge. *
Appellant State of Minnesota argues that the decision of the district court to continue J.B.A.’s ease for dismissal over the objection of the prosecutor must be reversed because no “special circumstances” authorized the court to exercise its inherent judicial authority. Respondent J.B.A. 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. R. Juv. P. 14.10…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- State v. KrotzerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- In Re the Welfare of M.A.C.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- State v. KrotzerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- In Re the Welfare of J.L.Y.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- In Re the Welfare of J.S.H.-G.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., ChildCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024