Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471.

194 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 This is a which requires a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing once the party seeking substantial modification of parenting time establishes a prima facie case for modification.
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
or the parties and that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.” Section 518.18(d) places the burden on a party seeking modification of a custody order “to establish satisfactorily on a preliminary basis that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances from the time when the original or amended custody order was issued.” d 471, 472 (Minn. 1981).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The party requesting modification of a child custody order has the burden of proving on a preliminary basis that a significant change in circumstances has occurred.” (d 471, 472 (Minn. 1981)).
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
1 In addressing a motion to restrict parenting time, the district court applies the analytical framework that was developed for evaluating a
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); (stating if moving party fails to make prima facie case, district court “[is] require[d] ...
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 710 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2006
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 710 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2006
See, (“It is our view that a reasonable construction of the statute would be to require the trial court to deny a motion for modification of a custody order unless the accompanying affidavits set forth sufficient justification, if the facts alleged therein are true, for the modification.”); In re Weber, 65
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 699 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 699 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Frieson v. Pahkala 653 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Frieson v. Pahkala 653 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 624 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 624 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(moving party has burden in custody modification proceeding); Johnson v. Johnson, 304 Minn. 583, 584 , (moving party has burden in child support modification proceeding); (moving party has burden in maintenance modificati
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
In Auge , we said “unless respondent can make a prima facie showing against removal, permission to remove may be granted without a full eviden-tiary hearing * * Auge, d at 396 ().
Marriage of Sanderson v. Sanderson 541 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1995
Marriage of Sanderson v. Sanderson 541 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1995
“A trial court is accorded broad discretion in its consideration and disposition of a motion to modify an award of child custody made incident to a judgment and decree of marital dissolution.”
Valentine v. Lutz 512 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1994
Valentine v. Lutz 512 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1994
(citing § 518.18(d) (1980)).
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 508 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 508 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
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