DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schultz v. Schultz, 123 N.W.2d 118.

37 citing documents.

  • In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Minnesota courts have repeatedly recognized that it is “unfortunate” to separate children, and such separations are “carefully scrutinized.” See Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208, (stating that it was “unfortunate that the children are not living together under one roof with either parent”); (discussing split-custody decisions).
  • Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
  • Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
    See Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208 , see also Minn.Stat.
  • Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536 , McDermott v. McDermott, 192 Minn. 32 , 255 N.W.
  • Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    “While split custody decisions may be made within the discretion of the trial court, they are viewed as ‘unfortunate’ and are carefully scrutinized.” (quoting Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208 , ).
  • Marriage of Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz 410 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz 410 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Although the trial court has discretion to split custody of children, such decisions “are viewed as ‘unfortunate’ and are carefully scrutinized.” (quoting Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208 , ).
  • Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    That choice of action is always “unfortunate.” Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208
  • Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208
  • Johnson v. Lundell 361 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Johnson v. Lundell 361 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208
  • Lawver v. Lawver 360 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Lawver v. Lawver 360 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208
  • Marriage of Rinker v. Rinker 358 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Marriage of Rinker v. Rinker 358 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208
  • Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard 348 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard 348 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208
  • Hoffman v. Hoffman 227 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
  • Hoffman v. Hoffman 227 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
    Currier v. Currier, 271 Minn. 369 , Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205
  • Erickson v. Erickson 220 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1974
  • Erickson v. Erickson 220 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1974
    Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , 159 N. W. (2d) 271 [1968]; Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , 123 N. W. (2d) 118 [1963]; Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 261 Minn. 272 , 111 N. W. (2d) 782 [1961], The second principle is that the lower court is vested with broad discretion in determining custody matters and will not be reversed by an appellate court unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.
  • Wallin v. Wallin 187 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1971
  • Wallin v. Wallin 187 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1971
    Eisel v. Eisel, 261 Minn. 1 , 110 N. W. (2d) 881 ; Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 261 Minn. 272 , 111 N. W. (2d) 782 ; Currier v. Currier, 271 Minn. 369 , 136 N. W. (2d) 55 ; Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321 , 170 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , 159 N. W. (2d) 271 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , 123 N. W. (2d) 118 .
  • Hanson v. Hanson 170 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1969
  • Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
  • Hanson v. Hanson 170 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1969
    Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , 159 N. W. (2d) 271 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , 123 N. W. (2d) 118 ; Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 261 Minn. 272 , 111 N. W. (2d) 782 .
  • Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
    Molto v. Molto, 242 Minn. 112 , 64 N. W. (2d) 154 ; Eisel v. Eisel, 261 Minn. 1 , 110 N. W. (2d) 881 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , 123 N. W. (2d) 118 ; Bennett v. Bennett, 277 Minn. 227, 229 , 152 N. W. (2d) 187, 189 ; Lindberg v. Lindberg, 282 Minn. 536 , 163 N. W. (2d) 870 .
  • Hansen v. Hansen 169 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1969
  • Hansen v. Hansen 169 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1969
    Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , 123 N. W. (2d) 118 ; Eisel v. Eisel, 261 Minn. 1 , 110 N. W. (2d) 881 ; Molto v. Molto, 242 Minn. 112 , 64 N. W. (2d) 154 .
  • Fish v. Fish 159 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1968
  • Fish v. Fish 159 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1968
    Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205 , 123 N. W. (2d) 118 .