In the Interest of W.E.R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that trial court judge’s oral statements may not be considered as substitute for findings of fact or conclusions of law
• \[T]he judgment of the trial court must be affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal theory that finds support in the evidence.\
• appellate court could not substitute judge's oral comments for findings of fact and conclusions of law when none were requested or filed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).