Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rodgers v. Knauff

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 15, 2002No. Nos. C3-01-170, C6-01-678Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbert, Justice

I concur with most of the majority’s legal analysis, but would reverse the district court outright and end this protracted litigation at this time. Not only did appellant have the right to joint legal custody of *178his daughter before his ex-wife died, but he automatically retained the right to sole legal and physical custody of his daughter upon his ex-wife’s death. See In re Hohmann, 255 Minn. 165, 168-169, 95 N.W.2d 643, 646-47 (1959). There is nothing in the record to support altering appellant’s right to have custody of his daughter.

The paramount need is for this child to be with her…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Wallin v. WallinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  3. Fish v. FishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  4. Aske v. AskeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  5. State Ex Rel. Gravelle v. RenschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API