Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
ยง

County of Lake v. Hungerford

356 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
County of Lake v. Hungerford

3 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. Region VIII North Welfare ex rel. Evans v. Evans

    402 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 8 times
    In Evans we explicitly addressed the issue of whether imposition of liability under section 256.87 is mandatory or within the discretion of the court.

    Id. at 601. See also County of Lake v. Hungerford, 356 N.W.2d 405, 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). The language of the statute permits the county to bring the action but it remains within the court's discretion to determine whether to order reimbursement and how much reimbursement to order.

  2. Maskrey v. Maskrey

    380 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    The statute allows the county, if there is no outstanding support order, to bring an action to require a parent to pay at least a portion of AFDC expended over a two-year period, depending on the parent's ability to pay. County of Lake on behalf of Hungerford v. Hungerford, 356 N.W.2d 405, 406 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). In this case, the trial court made no explicit determination as to appellant's reasonable ability to pay.

  3. County of Lake on Behalf, Smith v. Smith

    356 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 1 times

    FORSBERG, Judge. This case involves the same statutory action for parental contribution for AFDC expended, Minn.Stat. ยง 256.87, and similar facts as Lake County on behalf of Hungerford v. Hungerford, 356 N.W.2d 405 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), filed today. The trial court awarded judgment in the amount of $1100 against Smith.