Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Flint v. Flint, 65 N.W. 272.

60 citing documents.

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
(observing that a child’s best interests outweigh the interests of a parent).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Joy Kemp, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And “[w]hen a district court is deciding a custody dispute, a child’s best interests [are] the court’s paramount commitment.” Thornton v. Bosquez , (d 547, 549 (Minn. 1995) ; ) (relying on “[a]n extensive line of precedent show[ing] long and unambiguous judicial commitment to the precept that a child’s best interests are the court[’]s paramount consideration in addressing child-related questions” and “outweigh” parental statutory rights).
In re the Custody of: T.L.H. DOB 12/05/2014, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(considering in a custody dispute “the cardinal principle is to regard the benefit” of the child rather than which parent is more blameworthy).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of J. R. R., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Flint v. Flint , -73, (Minn. 1895).
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend 869 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend 869 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189, 65 N.W.
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan 741 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan 741 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187 , 189 n. 2, 65 N.W.
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
We said a century ago, ‘[t]he cardinal principle in such matters is to regard the benefit of the infant as paramount * * * ’ and we have reiterated that premise in many recent cases.”) (quoting Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189-90 , 65 N.W.
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re Welfare of MH 595 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Welfare of MH 595 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re the Welfare of A.J.C. 556 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of A.J.C. 556 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re the Welfare of M.P. 542 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of M.P. 542 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
Olson v. Olson 534 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1995
Olson v. Olson 534 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1995
We said a century ago, “The cardinal principle in such matters is to regard the benefit of the infant as paramount * * *.” Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re ST 512 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1994
In re Petition to Adopt S.T. 512 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1994
In re Petition to Adopt S.T. 512 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1994
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re ST 512 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1994
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re ST 497 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re ST 497 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In re Adopt S.T. 497 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In re Adopt S.T. 497 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187, 189 , 65 N.W.
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State ex rel. Ausdemore v. Catholic Welfare Ass'n 48 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1951
State ex rel. Ausdemore v. Catholic Welfare Ass'n 48 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1951
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187 , .
State Ex Rel. Herniman v. Markson 244 N.W. 687 Minn. 1932
State Ex Rel. Herniman v. Markson 244 N.W. 687 Minn. 1932
Flint v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187 , ; Arne v. Holland, 85 Minn. 401 , ; State ex rel.
Jacobs v. Jacobs 161 N.W. 525 Minn. 1917
Jacobs v. Jacobs 161 N.W. 525 Minn. 1917
State v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187 , ; State v. O’Malley, 78 Minn. 163 , ; State v. Greenwood, 84 Minn. 203 , ; State v. Anderson, 89 Minn. 198 , ; Gauthier v. Walter, 110 Minn. 103 , ; State v. White, 123 Minn. 508 , .
State ex rel. Evangelical Lutheran Kinderfreund Society v. White 144 N.W. 157 Minn. 1913
State ex rel. Evangelical Lutheran Kinderfreund Society v. White 144 N.W. 157 Minn. 1913
ble nature, and therefore the welfare of the infant is the polar star by which the court is to be guided in the exercise of its discretion; and the court, when asked to restore, is not bound by any mere legal right of parent or guardian, but is to give it due weight as a claim founded on human nature, and generally equitable and just.” In line with these principles, this court, in State v. Flint, 63 Minn. 187 , , awarded a child to its mother instead of father, though the latter had the statutor

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by