Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell, 678 N.W.2d 471.

27 citing documents.

Eric Michael Kroiss v. Allisia Timm n/k/a Allisia Spring Wild, County of Chisago, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Katherine Patterson v. Jerry Lyn Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
16 “An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on the record.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell , (quotation omitted).
Denise Jean Thordson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, d 328, 333 (Minn. 1997) (stating that when reviewing “mixed questions of law and fact” appellate courts “correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the trial court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard”); O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is ‘against logic and the facts on [the] record.’” ()).
In re the Marriage of: Paul Jerome Wittrock v. Shelley Sue Wittrock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on [the] record.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (quoting Rutten v. Rutten , .
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Eric Alstrin v. Allison Lynn Alstrin, Carver County Minn. Ct. App. 2022
matters.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: John Edward Warrington v. Karen Lee Warrington Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2(b); see also Rose, d at 145; O’Donnell v. O’Donnell
In re the Marriage of: Linsey Lee Milbrandt v. Jeffrey Robert Milbrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
O’Donnell v. O ’Donnell, (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: John Edward Warrington, and Karen Lee Warrington Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2(b); Rose, d at 145 ; O’Donnell v. O’Donnell
In re the Marriage of: Tabatha Annette Cusick n/k/a Tabatha Annette Biegler v. Mark Anthony Cusick Minn. Ct. App. 2020
O’Donnell v. O’Donnell , (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Michael James Pudlick v. Tammy Jean Pudlick Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline v. Daniel Robert Moline Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad v. Stephanie Christine Olstad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[A] stipulation fixing the respective rights and obligations of the parties represents their voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement, and the district court should ‘carefully and only reluct antly’ alter its terms.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (Minn .
In re the Marriage of: Amy Lynn Clifton v. Brandon John Clifton, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Edward M. Williams Residuary Trust Created Under Article 5 of Last Will and … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An abuse of discretion also occurs when the district court rules in a manner that is “against logic and the facts on [the] record.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell
In re the Marriage of: Terri Lyn Swart, Kandiyohi County v. Tracy Donald Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mother argues that O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, supports upholding stipul ated agreements concerning child support where changes in circumstances are foreseeable by the parties.
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Lorraine Bourgoin v. Bradley Joseph Bourgoin, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Lorraine Bourgoin v. Bradley Joseph Bourgoin, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While a stipulation which fixes the parties’ child support rights and obligations “does not bar later consideration of whether a change in circumstances warrants a modification,” the district court should alter the support order “carefully and only reluctantly.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ostergaard Stillwell v. Harry Alan Stillwell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ostergaard Stillwell v. Harry Alan Stillwell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on the record.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (quotation omitted); (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Diane Drays Hill v. Michael C. Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Diane Drays Hill v. Michael C. Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although a child-support stipulation “is one factor to be considered in modification motions, child support relates to nonbargainable interests of children and is less subject to restraint by stipulation than are other dissolution matters.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, 5 (quotation omitted).
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
“[T]he existence of a stipulation does not bar later consideration of whether a change in circumstances warrants modification.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, d 471, 475 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Chad William Lenway v. Katherine Anne Brown (f/k/a Katherine Anne Lenway) Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Chad William Lenway v. Katherine Anne Brown (f/k/a Katherine Anne Lenway) Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on record.”).
Posey v. Fossen 707 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Posey v. Fossen 707 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2006