Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka, 675 N.W.2d 353.

118 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Calculation of husband’s income “A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” d 353, 357 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 230, 232 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating, in the context of a maintenance modification motion, that once the district court found a lack of substantially changed circumstances, a failure to make findings on other maintenance factors did not constitute reversible error); (stating that specific findings on all statutory maintenance factors are not necessarily required “if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors”).
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that appellate courts need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying Wilson in a family law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Anita Joan Rakow v. Gary Arnold Rakow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Anita Joan Rakow v. Gary Arnold Rakow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 353, 358 (Minn. App. 2004) (“A finding of a maintenance obligor’s ability to pay maintenance is required to support an award of maintenance.” ()); (stating that “it is not feasible to burden [the husband] with a m
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A finding of a maintenance obligor’s ability to pay maintenance is required to support an award of maintenance,” and “[a] district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” −58 (Minn. App. 8 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(affirming rejection of request for attorney fees because much of the attorney-fee liability was the product of unnecessary litigation that did not rise to the level of good faith).
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”