§ 524.5
Citing Cases (41)
Minnesota Supreme Court
Bobby Lykins, by George Duranske, conservator, Respondent, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co.,... · 2025 6 citations
+ 6 more citations in this opinion.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Benson · 2024 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
William Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital, ... · 2023 10 citations
provider in fact violated those rights. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 524.5-316(c) (2022) (authorizing
+ 9 more citations in this opinion.
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against David L. Ludescher, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 194347. ... · 2023 64 citations
+ 64 more citations in this opinion.
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person · 2015 8 citations
+ 8 more citations in this opinion.
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward · 2014 102 citations
+ 102 more citations in this opinion.
In Re the Welfare of J.B. · 2010 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Botler v. Wagner Greenhouses · 2008 6 citations
Botler appealed the denial of his claim for additional guardian and conservator costs. The WCCA vacated the compensation judge’s findings and order and dismissed the appeal, concluding that “jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation courts does not extend to interpreting or applying Minn. Stat. § 524.5-501(c) [the probate statute dealing with appointment of guardians or conservators on referral under section 176.092]” and finding “nothing in the Workers’ Compensation Act authorizing the relief requested.” Botler v. Wagner Greenhouses, 67 Minn. Workers’ Comp. Dec. 450, 454-55 (WCCA 2007).
Botler appealed the denial of his claim for additional guardian and conservator costs. The WCCA vacated the compensation judge’s findings and order and dismissed the appeal, concluding that “jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation courts does not extend to interpreting or applying Minn. Stat. § 524.5-501(c) [the probate statute dealing with appointment of guardians or conservators on referral under section 176.092]” and finding “nothing in the Workers’ Compensation Act authorizing the relief requested.” Botler v. Wagner Greenhouses, 67 Minn. Workers’ Comp. Dec. 450, 454-55 (WCCA 2007).
Botler appealed the denial of his claim for additional guardian and conservator costs. The WCCA vacated the compensation judge’s findings and order and dismissed the appeal, concluding that “jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation courts does not extend to interpreting or applying Minn. Stat. § 524.5-501(c) [the probate statute dealing with appointment of guardians or conservators on referral under section 176.092]” and finding “nothing in the Workers’ Compensation Act authorizing the relief requested.” Botler v. Wagner Greenhouses, 67 Minn. Workers’ Comp. Dec. 450, 454-55 (WCCA 2007).
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
In re the Guardianship of: Doris Anita Seward · 2024 10 citations
+ 10 more citations in this opinion.
In re: Guardianship of Jill Lee Osufsen · 2023 9 citations
+ 9 more citations in this opinion.
In re: Guardianship of Brianna Orwig, Person Subject to Guardianship · 2023 5 citations
+ 5 more citations in this opinion.
State v. Christensen · 2017 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh · 2017 6 citations
+ 6 more citations in this opinion.
In re the Conservatorship of: Merritt Elmer Johnson, Protected Person. · 2016 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re GUARDIANSHIP OF Jose Maria Chimborazo GUAMAN · 2016 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Patricia Annette Wallace, Protected Person. · 2016 6 citations
+ 6 more citations in this opinion.
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon · 2016 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In re Guardianship of Charles Rottelo, Ward. · 2015 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Adeline E. Chapman. · 2015 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
In re the Guardianship of the Person and Conservatorship of Estate of: Mohamed Abshir Musse, a/k/a Mohamed Abshir Musa, Proposed Ward. · 2015 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Heidi Anne Vizuete and In re the Marriage of Miriam Rose Vizuete v. Edison Marcello Vizuete · 2015 9 citations
+ 9 more citations in this opinion.
In re: Guardianship of the Estate of David Tracy Platz, Jr. · 2014 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Catherine C. Chapman, Protected Person. · 2014 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. · 2014 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
In re the Guardianship of O'Brien · 2014 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
In re Guardianship of Durand · 2014 7 citations
+ 7 more citations in this opinion.
In re the Guardianship of Tschumy · 2013 31 citations
+ 31 more citations in this opinion.
In re Guardianship of Pates · 2012 21 citations
+ 21 more citations in this opinion.
In re Guardianship of DeYoung · 2011 13 citations
+ 13 more citations in this opinion.
Greer v. Professional Fiduciary, Inc. · 2011 21 citations
+ 21 more citations in this opinion.
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle · 2010 4 citations
Here, the district court order included findings that summarized provisions of the Service Fee Policy and the Standards of Practice. Although the district court took notice of these provisions after the hearing, the actual documents do not appear in the record. Appellants assert that they were not aware of the district court’s consideration of these materials until they received its decision. The Service Fee Policy represents a position taken by Aitkin County regarding the appropriate fees to be charged when a guardian represents an indigent ward, and the policy is referenced in the statutes. Minn. Stat. § 524.5-502. The statutory reference is significant because it puts parties on notice that such a policy exists and because the policy is the official action of a governmental body adopted incident to statute. As an official government policy, we conclude that it was not error for the district court to take notice of the Service Fee Policy.
Here, the district court order included findings that summarized provisions of the Service Fee Policy and the Standards of Practice. Although the district court took notice of these provisions after the hearing, the actual documents do not appear in the record. Appellants assert that they were not aware of the district court’s consideration of these materials until they received its decision. The Service Fee Policy represents a position taken by Aitkin County regarding the appropriate fees to be charged when a guardian represents an indigent ward, and the policy is referenced in the statutes. Minn. Stat. § 524.5-502. The statutory reference is significant because it puts parties on notice that such a policy exists and because the policy is the official action of a governmental body adopted incident to statute. As an official government policy, we conclude that it was not error for the district court to take notice of the Service Fee Policy.
Here, the district court order included findings that summarized provisions of the Service Fee Policy and the Standards of Practice. Although the district court took notice of these provisions after the hearing, the actual documents do not appear in the record. Appellants assert that they were not aware of the district court’s consideration of these materials until they received its decision. The Service Fee Policy represents a position taken by Aitkin County regarding the appropriate fees to be charged when a guardian represents an indigent ward, and the policy is referenced in the statutes. Minn. Stat. § 524.5-502. The statutory reference is significant because it puts parties on notice that such a policy exists and because the policy is the official action of a governmental body adopted incident to statute. As an official government policy, we conclude that it was not error for the district court to take notice of the Service Fee Policy.
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Nelson v. Holland · 2009 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.C.M. · 2008 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
In Re the Guardianship of Autio · 2008 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
In Re Guardianship of Wells · 2007 11 citations
+ 11 more citations in this opinion.
In Re the Guardianship of Welch · 2004 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota
Rosati v. Pine County · 2020 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Ritzko v. Berryhill · 2019 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Ritchie · 2012 40 citations
+ 40 more citations in this opinion.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Bankr. D. Minnesota
In Re Saunders · 2007 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.