Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite LaBelle v. LaBelle, 207 N.W.2d 291.

33 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
21 When a child is “capable by reason of ag e and intelligence” of stating a custodial preference, the child’s preference “is entitled to weight in determining which of the parents is to be awarded custody.”
In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
While we rev iew the factual support for clear error, “In matters of custody, the [district] court is vested with a wide discretion, and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Rebekah Lynn Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he custodial preference of a child capable by reason of age and intelligence of expressing a preference is entitled to weight in determining which of the parents is to be awarded custody.”
In Re Santoro 594 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1999
In Re Santoro 594 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1999
Rys v. Vorlicek, 229 Minn. 497 , (respecting the wishes of 11-year-old child to remain in third party’s home rather than return to father); see also LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 174-76 , -93 (1973) (crediting 13-year-old child’s preference to modify placement order and grant father custody), in part because of the futility of forcing unwilling teenagers to cooperate with visitation.
Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
La-Belle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173 , State v. Waslie, 277 Minn. 446 , Minn. Stat. § 257.025 (1988).
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 452 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Warwick v. Warwick 438 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Warwick v. Warwick 438 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
With regard to a family court referee’s proposed findings and order, “[t]he trial judge [is] completely free to exercise his judgment and discretion.” LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 176
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula 374 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1985
Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula 374 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1985
1 (1976); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76 , LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173
Andersen v. Andersen 360 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Andersen v. Andersen 360 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See also LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 176
Marriage of Flinck v. Flinck 351 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Flinck v. Flinck 351 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 175 , Warden v. Warden, 286 Minn. 543, 544 , see also Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 365, 368
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
§ 518.17(1) (1982); LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173
Berndt v. Berndt 292 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1980
Berndt v. Berndt 292 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1980
1 (1976); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76 , LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173
Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 249 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1976
Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 249 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1976
The same argument was presented to this court in LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 176 , where we stated: “Defendant argues that the trial court should be bound by the findings of the referee unless those findings are clearly erroneous.
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1976
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1976
In LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173 , concerned with the question of change of custody, the family court judge, after taking some additional testimony and interviewing the child, rejected the no-change-in-custody recommendation of the referee and transferred custody from the mother to the father.
Scheibe v. Scheibe 241 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1976
Scheibe v. Scheibe 241 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1976
Ryg v. Kerkow, 296 Minn. 265 , LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173 , Minn. St.
Davis v. Davis 235 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1975
Davis v. Davis 235 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1975
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 303 Minn. 559 , LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 *538 Minn. 173
Felsheim v. Felsheim 214 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1974
Felsheim v. Felsheim 214 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1974
The law applicable to custody, property division, alimony, and support has, in addition to the statutory provisions, 1 already been expressed adequately and exhaustively in Cooper v. Cooper, 298 Minn. 247 , Ryg v. Kerkow, 296 Minn. 265 , LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173 , ; Reiland v. Reiland, 290 Minn. 497 , Messer v. Messer, 289 Minn. 449 , Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , Vandewege v. Vandewege, 284 Minn. 330 , Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321 , 170 N
Ryg v. Kerkow 207 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1973
Ryg v. Kerkow 207 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1973
As we have stated in numerous cases, see, e.g., the recent case of LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173 , the trial court has broad discretion in determining which parent should have custody of minor children.