Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

M.B. v. Konenkamp

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1994No. 18461Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAmundson, Justice

Konenkamp was dealing with a repeat juvenile offender who resided in a dysfunctional home. The minor had previously expressed concern regarding M.B.’s drinking habits. Konenkamp was making a valiant effort to address the custodial parent’s drinking problem; namely, returning the minor to a sober home. In an attempt to provide such an environment, Konenkamp entered the protection order under the provisions of SDCL 26-7A-107(8). The language of this section provides that such an order may “require” a parent to participate in treatment. The definition of “require” is the imposition of a command…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. At & T Information Systems v. South Dakota State Board of EqualizationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Wilson v. WestCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API