In re the Welfare of G. D. E.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re the Welfare of G. D. E.

313 N.W.2d 388, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1545

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 16, 1981

DocketNo. 51839

StatusPublished

This text of 313 N.W.2d 388 (In re the Welfare of G. D. E.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Welfare of G. D. E., 313 N.W.2d 388, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1545 (Mich. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OTIS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Hennepin County District Court, Juvenile Division, committing a juvenile, who was adjudicated delinquent, to the County Home School for an indefinite period. The juvenile in question apparently has been released; therefore, he no longer has any particular interest in the decision of the issue. The issue raised is thus technically moot. However, because the issue still may have significance to other juveniles, we note that the state has conceded the correctness of the appellant’s contention, that the commitment should be for a definite time.. This is because the commitment was pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1(c) (1980), and because subdivision 4 of the statute specifically provides that a commitment under subdivision 1(c) must be for “a specified length of time.”

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OTIS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Hennepin County District Court, Juvenile Division, committing a juvenile, who was adjudicated delinquent, to the County Home School for an indefinite period. The juvenile in question apparently has been released; therefore, he no longer has any particular interest in the decision of the issue. The issue raised is thus technically moot. However, because the issue still may have significance to other juveniles, we note that the state has conceded the correctness of the appellant’s contention, that the commitment should be for a definite time.. This is because the commitment was pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1(c) (1980), and because subdivision 4 of the statute specifically provides that a commitment under subdivision 1(c) must be for “a specified length of time.”

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.W.2d 388, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-welfare-of-g-d-e-minn-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack