In re J.D.T.

22 Citing cases

  1. In re R. V. M.

    No. A23-1806 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2024)

    Id.; In re Welfare of Child of J.D.T, 946 N.W.2d 321, 327 (Minn. 2020).

  2. In re G.A.H.

    998 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2023)   Cited 7 times
    In G.A.H., the appellant argued that she was deprived of due process when, after the appellant failed to appear for the termination-of-parental-rights trial, the district court refused to reschedule the trial to permit cross-examination and testimony.

    We acknowledge that the district court had discretion to deny the County’s petition for termination of parental rights even though the County clearly and convincingly proved that statutory grounds for termination exist. See In re Welfare of Children of J.D.T., 946 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Minn. 2020) (emphasizing that termination of parental rights is always discretionary). Accordingly, the fact that S.T.’s testimony did not address all of the factual bases for the district court’s conclusion—i.e., that reasonable efforts had failed to correct the conditions leading to the placement of S.T.’s three children out of the home—is not dispositive.

  3. King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Commercial Constr. LLC

    958 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2021)   Cited 32 times
    In King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Com. Construction LLC, 958 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2021), another case in which an insured sought insurer indemnity for the settlement of multiple unallocated claims, the Supreme Court of Minnesota cited UnitedHealth and adopted "a similar allocation test."

    Therefore, the issue is forfeited. SeeIn re Welfare of Children of J.D.T. , 946 N.W.2d 321, 326 n.3 (Minn. 2020). Nonetheless, we observe that the argument of King's Cove is not consistent with the language of the settlement agreement.

  4. In re Issuance of Air Emissions

    955 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. 2021)   Cited 8 times
    Declining to address whether the court of appeals may remand without explicitly finding a violation of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act

    Based on this record, we conclude that the Agency and PolyMet forfeited any challenge to the court of appeals’ decision to grant the motion to supplement.SeeIn re Welfare of Children of J.D.T. , 946 N.W.2d 321, 326 n.3 (Minn. 2020) ; Rhodes v. State , 875 N.W.2d 779, 784 n.3 (Minn. 2016).

  5. Pfoser v. Harpstead

    953 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 2021)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that the trust at issue met the Minnesota statutory requirements for a pooled special needs trust, but addressing the separate issue of whether a transfer into the pooled special needs trust subjected the beneficiary to a transfer penalty, which turned on whether the transfer was given for "valuable consideration"

    "A statute is unambiguous if it has only one reasonable interpretation." In re Welfare of Children of J.D.T. , 946 N.W.2d 321, 327 (Minn. 2020). When interpreting a statute, we read "words and phrases ... according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage."

  6. In re The Welfare of the Children of B. S. F.-J.

    No. A24-0072 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2024)

    The statute's use of "may" confers discretion on the district court. See In re Welfare of Child. of J.D.T., 946 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Minn. 2020) (noting, when construing the statute addressing termination of parental rights, that the statute's use of "may" conferred "discretion" on the district court regarding whether to terminate parental rights); Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn.App. 2017) (noting a district court's discretion in modifying "parenting time" in a dissolution proceeding). Appellate courts review a district court's best-interests analysis for an abuse of discretion. A.H., 879

  7. Hammerberg v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.

    No. A23-0901 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2024)

    "A statute is unambiguous if it has only one reasonable interpretation." In re Welfare of Children of J.D.T., 946 N.W.2d 321, 327 (Minn. 2020). We afford some deference to an agency's interpretation "where the statutory language is technical in nature, and the agency's interpretation is longstanding."

  8. In re V.R.R.

    No. A23-1358 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2024)

    Id., subd. 6(f) (requiring findings that the moving party is the "most suitable adoptive home" for the child based on the 11 best-interests factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 260C.212, subd. 2(b) (2022)); see Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subds. 15, 15(a) (2022) (defining "[m]ay" as permissive and "[m]ust" as mandatory, respectively); In re Welfare of Child of J.D.T., 946 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Minn. 2020) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subds. 15, 15(a) (2018)). Grandmother challenges the district court's best-interests findings, arguing that the record does not support them and that the court improperly weighed the evidence.

  9. In re D. L. W.

    No. A23-0998 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2024)

    This court reviews a district court's decision regarding whether the department unreasonably failed to make an adoptive placement for an abuse of discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a) (2022) (stating district courts "may" order relative adoptive placement if it finds department unreasonably failed to make requested placement); In re Welfare of Child. J.D.T., 946 N.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Minn. 2020) (noting, in a juvenile-protection appeal, that a statute's use of "may" confers discretion on the district court). "On appeal of a juvenile-protection order, we review the juvenile court's factual findings for clear error and its finding of a statutory basis for the order for abuse of discretion."

  10. Guetzkow v. Irgens

    No. A23-0557 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2023)

    See In re Welfare of Child. of J.D.T., 946 N.W.2d 321, 327 n.6 (Minn. 2020). The district court's statement in the Wright County order for judgment that Irgens "claims the Pope County property as his homestead" is not a legal determination that his claim was valid because that issue was not relevant to and not contested in the personal-injury lawsuit.