LaChapelle v. Mitten

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).