Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Robinson v. Hansel, 223 N.W.2d 138.

21 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application of Jesus Adrian Soto for a Change of Name of Minor. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Application of Luvenia Kollman for a Change of Name On Behalf of a … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4 substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.” -01 (Minn. 1981) ().
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
is the sole legal parent of her children.8 Appointed counsel argue that J.M.M.’s status under the Parentage Act is immaterial because “[t]his court has twice held that a custodial mother does not possess a superior right to change a child’s name over the child’s natural father.” –01 (Minn. 1981)
In the Matter of the Application of Debora Lee Neu, Brian Joseph Neu for a Change of Name … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If a parent objects to a name change, a district court should exercise “great caution” and grant the name change “only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.” Saxton, d at 301 ( ).
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Robinson v. Hansel, 16 302 Minn. 34, 35, (discussing society’s “strong interest in the preservation of the parental relationship”).
In re the Matter of: Application of Laura Beth Long for a Change of Name on behalf of … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Application of Laura Beth Long for a Change of Name on behalf of … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “ordering a change of a minor’s surname against the objection of one parent should be exercised with great caution and only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.” Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36
Foster v. Foster 802 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Foster v. Foster 802 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quoting Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36 , ).
In Re the Welfare of C.M.G. 516 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Welfare of C.M.G. 516 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36
Aitkin County Family Service Agency v. Girard 390 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aitkin County Family Service Agency v. Girard 390 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Applying the statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the “welfare of the children must ultimately be the controlling consideration in any change of status.” Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 35
Young v. Young 356 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Young v. Young 356 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Application of Saxton, ( quoting Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36 , ).
Application of Saxton 309 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1981
Application of Saxton 309 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1981
Four issues are presented: first, whether the trial court’s reliance on our opinion in Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34 , to *300 resolve the propriety of the requested name change was proper; second, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that the children’s best interests favored retention of their given surname; third, whether the trial court erred in refusing to take the chil
Laks v. Laks 540 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975