Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tammen v. Tammen, 182 N.W.2d 840.

54 citing documents.

Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
2(5) (2024) (stating that any deviation from the presumptive child support obligation established by section 518A.34 must serve “the best interests of the child”); (“Courts will not be bound by an agreement between parents affecting the rights of minor children with respect to support, but will be controlled by the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”); (“Child support requirements
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Tammen v. Tammen , 289 Minn. 28, 30, 182 N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Reily Peters v. Deanna Lynn Peters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Reily Peters v. Deanna Lynn Peters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Hunley v. Hunley 757 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Hunley v. Hunley 757 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In family law decisions, the judiciary is controlled by “the welfare of the child.” Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (noting that child’s welfare takes precedence even if parents stipulate to child support).
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
with Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , -42 (1970).
Maki v. Hansen 694 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Maki v. Hansen 694 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, e.g., Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
State Ex Rel. Jarvela v. Burke 678 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State Ex Rel. Jarvela v. Burke 678 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Cf. Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (stating that minor children have a “basic right” to support from their parents and that in matters of support amount, welfare of child is paramount concern); -64 (Minn.App.2000) (recognizing that parent has fundamental right to travel, but hold
Marriage of Svenningsen v. Svenningsen 641 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Svenningsen v. Svenningsen 641 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Tammen v. Tam- *617 men, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (concluding that in matters of support, paramount concern is child’s welfare).
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
As we stated nearly three decades ago in Tammen v. Tammen: “Courts * * * will be controlled by the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.” 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Murphy v. Murphy 574 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Murphy v. Murphy 574 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(noting strong state policy of assuring children have adequate and timely economic support from their parents); (concluding only when parent does not provide for child should government step in); Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (concluding minor children have basic right to support *82 from their parents and that in matters of support, paramount concern is welfare of children).
Loscheider v. Loscheider 563 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Loscheider v. Loscheider 563 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Tweeton v. Tweeton 560 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Marriage of Tweeton v. Tweeton 560 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (stating that minor children have a “basic right” to support from their parents and that in matters of support, courts are controlled by the welfare of the child as the paramount concern).
Marriage of Geiger v. Geiger 470 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Geiger v. Geiger 470 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (“Courts * * * will be controlled by the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration”).
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This argument is based on two propositions: a child’s right to support may not be bargained away by his parents, Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , and a waiver of child support is contrary to public policy.
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Diedrich v. Diedrich 424 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Diedrich v. Diedrich 424 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Aumock v. Aumock 410 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Aumock v. Aumock 410 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 405 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 405 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See also Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , (reduction in age of majority has no retroactive effect on child support provisions); Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28 , (agreements between parents affecting rights of minor children to support are not binding on the courts).
Marriage of Jackson v. Jackson 403 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jackson v. Jackson 403 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Further, the support determination “will be controlled by the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.” Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
State, County of St. Louis Ex Rel. Anderson v. Philips 380 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, County of St. Louis Ex Rel. Anderson v. Philips 380 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
State Ex Rel. Mart v. Mart 380 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State Ex Rel. Mart v. Mart 380 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court found it was not in the best interests of the two children to recognize the alleged oral agreement between the parties, relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28
Marriage of Kehr v. Kehr 375 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kehr v. Kehr 375 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28
Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 372 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 372 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See also Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Moylan v. Moylan 368 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Moylan v. Moylan 368 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Greeler v. Greeler 368 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Greeler v. Greeler 368 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Courts will not be bound by an agreement between parents affecting the rights of minor children with respect to support, but will be controlled by the welfare of the child.” Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30
Marriage of Ferraro v. Ferraro 364 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Ferraro v. Ferraro 364 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , -42 (1970).