Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. Peterson, 242 N.W.2d 88.

72 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick Schanze, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
P. 81.01; n.3 (Minn. 1976).
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297 , 306 n. 4, , 94 n. 4 (1976).
In Re Conservatorship of Smith 655 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Conservatorship of Smith 655 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297 , 304 n. 3, , 93 n. 3 (1976) (stating Appepdix A is “of course, not exclusive”).
Holm v. Casino Resource Corp. 632 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Holm v. Casino Resource Corp. 632 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297 , 304 n. 3, , 93 n. 3 (1976).
Leek v. American Express Property Casualty 591 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Leek v. American Express Property Casualty 591 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297 , 304 n. 3, , 93 n. 3 (1976).
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
5 See Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304 , (district court has “full authority” to adopt referee’s order “in whole or in part”).
Case v. Case 516 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Case v. Case 516 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
These recommended findings are advisory only; the family court judge bears the ultimate responsibility to make an “informed and independent decision.” (quoting Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304 , ), pet.
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
See *676 Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 302-03 , -93 (1976).
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 415 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 415 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304 , (child custody matters); Berg v. Berg, 309 Minn. 281, 285 , (extending Peterson to family court matters other than custody).
Marriage of Eichenholz v. Eichenholz 407 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Eichenholz v. Eichenholz 407 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304 , ).
Thomas v. Fey 405 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thomas v. Fey 405 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 305-06 , (footnote omitted) (family court referee’s recommended findings and orders in custody matters are advisory only and possess no more than prima facie validity).
Marriage of Levine v. Levine 401 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Pflug v. Kennedy 401 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Pflug v. Kennedy 401 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
DECISION Rule 16.02 of the Fourth Judicial District Rules provides that “[a]ppeals from a Referee shall be an independent review by the Judge on the transcript.” The supreme court underscored the importance of the original trial transcript as part of a trial court’s review of a referee’s findings in Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304
Marriage of Levine v. Levine 401 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 305
Marriage of Olson v. Olson 399 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Olson v. Olson 399 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The supreme court addressed the powers and duties of a district judge on review in Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304 , : [A]ll recommended findings and orders of a family court referee in custody matters are advisory only and possess no more than prima facie validity.
Wilkus-Schmidt-Hight v. Wilkus 398 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wilkus-Schmidt-Hight v. Wilkus 398 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 396 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 396 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A family court referee’s recommended findings and orders are advisory only and the family court judge ultimately is responsible for making “an informed and independent decision.” Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304
Marriage of Greenlaw v. Greenlaw 396 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Greenlaw v. Greenlaw 396 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297
Fudenberg v. Molstad 390 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fudenberg v. Molstad 390 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Berg v. Berg, 309 Minn. 281 , Pe *22 terson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The roles of the referee and reviewing judge were discussed at length in Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297
Marriage of Hoffa v. Hoffa 382 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hoffa v. Hoffa 382 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297 , the supreme court observed that custody cases are in a class of their own: [A custody determination] invariably involves a decision based upon facts which must be determined by a resolution of conflicting testimony or inferences to be drawn from reports made by supporting family court personnel
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
In Re the Welfare of L.K.W. 372 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of L.K.W. 372 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 307 , see Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 82
Knutson v. Primeau 371 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Knutson v. Primeau 371 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Although the trial court referred frequently to “Rule 53 review” of a referee’s proposed findings, findings in a custody matter are not "reviewed" because the trial judge "has the duty and retains the ultimate responsibility to make an informed and independent decision.” Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304
Andersen v. Andersen 360 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Andersen v. Andersen 360 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The scope of the district court judge’s powers and duties on review were elucidated in Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 304 , : [W]e hold that all recommended findings and orders of a family court referee in custody matters are advisory only and possess no more than prima facie validity.
McCarthy v. McCarthy 344 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1984