Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 3/14/2000

LaChapelle v. Mitten

Citations

607 N.W.2d 151
2000 Minn. App. LEXIS 226
2000 WL 272032

How courts have described this case

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

holding that state’s compelling interest in protecting children justifies intrusion against familial right to privacy
explaining that when a statute is clear, the court need not, and cannot, look beyond its plain language and rejecting appellant's policy arguments
stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors[,] it cannot create public policy”
stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”
stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”
“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Halbrooks, Lansing, Shumaker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.