Legal Opinion
C.O. v. Doe
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 2, 2008No. A07-826PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAGE, Justice.
C.O., the biological father of minor A.D., moved to enforce his rights under a contact agreement he entered into with John and Jackie Doe, AD.’s adoptive parents, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 259.58 (2006). In response, the Does moved to have C.O.’s motion dismissed and the contact agreement terminated. After hearing' arguments on the motions but without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the Does’ motion, concluding that C.O.’s conduct constituted “exceptional circumstances” under section 259.58 warranting termination of the agreement. The court of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Greene v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Schatz v. Interfaith Care CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Sawh v. City of Lino LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- In re the Welfare of J.J.P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- In re Individual 35W Bridge LitigationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Weiler v. RitchieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.