DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wallin v. Wallin, 187 N.W.2d 627.

122 citing documents.

  • In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • Baker v. Baker 481 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Baker v. Baker 481 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Child custody decisions, to be premised on the child’s best interests, are to be based on trial court findings “set forth with a high degree of particularity.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (application of Wallin to certain domestic abuse custody orders).
  • Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    52.01; Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 82 , Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • In Re the Welfare of D.L. 479 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • In Re the Welfare of D.L. 479 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (disruptive effect of custody change not sufficient to prevent parent from prevailing in custody dispute *415 with nonparent); State, ex rel.
  • Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal 457 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal 457 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264
  • Andrasko v. Andrasko 443 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Andrasko v. Andrasko 443 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    7.05 (1988); see also Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (in view of broad discretion of trial court in domestic relations cases generally, it is “especially important” that basis for trial court decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity).
  • Durkin v. Hinich 442 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1989
  • Durkin v. Hinich 442 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1989
    Even though the trial court is given broad discretion in determining custody matters, it is important that “the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • Marriage of Rapacke v. Rapacke 442 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Rapacke v. Rapacke 442 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (in view of the trial court’s broad discretion in domestic relations cases, it is especially important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity)
  • Marriage of Dick v. Dick 438 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Dick v. Dick 438 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (it is “important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful”); see also In re Welfare of C.K.
  • In Re the Marriage of Schmidt 436 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1989
  • In Re the Marriage of Schmidt 436 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1989
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (high degree of particularized findings required in custody proceeding to aid in appellate review).
  • Durkin v. Hinich 431 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Durkin v. Hinich 431 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264
  • Rigwald v. Rigwald 423 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Rigwald v. Rigwald 423 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , Fam.Ct.P.R.
  • Marriage of Sullivan v. Allen 419 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Marriage of Sullivan v. Allen 419 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 414 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 414 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Taking into account the broad discretion of the trial court on issues in marital cases, “it is especially important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate court review is to be meaningful.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • Hall v. Hall 408 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Gillis v. Gillis 400 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Gillis v. Gillis 400 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See, e.g., Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • In Re the Custody of N.M.O. 399 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • In Re the Custody of N.M.O. 399 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The first is the rule of law announced by the trial court: A parent is “entitled to custody of her children unless it clearly appears that she is unfit or has abandoned her right to custody, or unless there are some extraordinary circumstances which would require that she be deprived of custody.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264
  • Voluntary Dissolution of Quintar, Inc. v. MBC, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Voluntary Dissolution of Quintar, Inc. v. MBC, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (court of appeals remanded due to lack of findings supporting denial of temporary injunction).
  • Tubwon v. Weisberg 394 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Tubwon v. Weisberg 394 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In determining custody of MKT, the court cited Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261 , which establishes the standard for awarding custody to third parties over the objection of a biological parent.
  • Quaderer v. Forrest 387 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Brauer v. Brauer 384 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Brauer v. Brauer 384 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (because of broad discretion in custody matters, the trial court must make particularized findings indicating basis of the custody determination).
  • Bjerke v. Wilcox 384 N.W.2d 250 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Bjerke v. Wilcox 384 N.W.2d 250 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261 , State ex rel.
  • In Re the Welfare of P.L.C. 384 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • In Re the Welfare of P.L.C. 384 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261
  • Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See, e.g., Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261
  • Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula 374 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1985
  • Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula 374 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1985
    Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76 , Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297 , Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267
  • Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    It is important that findings about a custody decision be “set forth with a high degree of particularity.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267