Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Petersen v. Petersen, 206 N.W.2d 658.

37 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The paramount consideration in determining parenting time is “the welfare and best interests of the children.” (addressing custody).
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
In re the Marriage of: Sarah Mae DeVille v. Darren Lee Hickey Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Sarah Mae DeVille v. Darren Lee Hickey Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The court must in every case exercise an independent judgment and is not bound by the stipulation.” (citation omitted).
Miguel Lionel Garza, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Theresa Blair, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The court must in every case exercise an independent judgment and is not bound by [a] stipulation.” (citation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The “paramount issue” for the district co urt in making parenting-time determinations mus t be the “welfare and best int erests of the child.” (noting that the fundamental focus is on the child’s best interests).
In re the Marriage of: Catherine Elizabeth Welch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n, adopted by the district court, that a provision of the stipulated parenting plan is insulated from both the dispute resolution process and court oversight.7 In summary, while a court gives “considerable weight” to intel ligently entered stipulations, “in determining questions of custody the paramount issue remains the welfare and best interests of the children.” Petersen v. Petersen
In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “paramount issue” for the district court in making parenting-time determinations must be the “welfare and best interests of the children.” Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, (noting that the fundamental focus is on the children’s best interests).
Ross Ronald Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
N.W.2d 153, 158-59 (Minn. 1999) (holding that “considerable weight will be given to stipulations entered with the benefit of counsel, but the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of the children”), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, at 984-85 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(i) (2016)); see also Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, (stating that courts are not 9 bound by stipulations); (“[A] district court has the d
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he paramount issue remains the welfare a nd best interests of the children.” Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, see also Schisel v. Schisel , (not ing that the fundamen tal focus is on the child’s best interests).
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citing Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148 , ).
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
See Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148 , (stating that courts are not bound by stipulations).
Clark v. Clark 543 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Clark v. Clark 543 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 149 , -60 (1973).
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The court should consider the fact that the parties fixed their obligations in the dissolution decree by stipulation, while keeping in mind that “the welfare of the child takes precedence even if the case involves a stipulation.” (citing Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148
Dabill v. Dabill 514 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Dabill v. Dabill 514 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147
Marriage of Simmons v. Simmons 486 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Simmons v. Simmons 486 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing Petersen v. Peterson, 296 Minn. 147, 148 , ).
Marriage of Tiggelaar v. Tiggelaar 433 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State, County of Swift ex rel. Streed v. Koosmann 397 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, County of Swift ex rel. Streed v. Koosmann 397 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Although a stipulated child support amount does not bind the court, see Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148-49 , this is also the amount provided by the guidelines.
Marriage of Thesing v. Thesing 390 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thesing v. Thesing 390 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148
Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes 388 N.W.2d 3 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes 388 N.W.2d 3 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148 , ).
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148
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 Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 149
Schoeberlein v. Rohlfing 383 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schoeberlein v. Rohlfing 383 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 149 , -60 (1973).