Legal Opinion

In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 19, 2013No. A13-0545PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge.

Appellants, grandparents of a minor child, challenge the district court’s denial of their motions for intervention, adoptive placement, and enforcement of a relative contact agreement. Respondent county argues that appellants’ appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The or*566der denying appellants’ motion for adoptive placement is appealable. Because the district court improperly weighed appellants’ supporting documents against the county’s allegations and appellants have set forth a prima facie case of unreasonableness on the part of the county, we reverse and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Christianson v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  2. Marriage of Nice-Petersen v. Nice-PetersenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. In Re GlaxoSmithKline PlcSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  4. In Re the Welfare of J.R.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  5. Ganguli v. University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re PooleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
  2. In re J. L. G.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
  3. In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
  4. In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
  5. In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. M. B. (Mth) and I. C. R. (Alleged Fth) and any Unknown Father, Parents....Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API