DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Reed v. Albaaj, 723 N.W.2d 50.

21 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of: Katherine Patterson v. Jerry Lyn Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Beland, et al v. Heidi Beland NKA Heidi Rylander, Polk County Human … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: John Erik Ensrud v. Janette Lea Eastman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Laura Marie Anderson v. Joshua Christian Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Diane Faye Meyer v. Chad Allen Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Nonmarital property includes property acquired by either spouse before the marriage.” (citing § 518.003, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Varvara Viktorovna Tishchenko v. Joseph Monroe Cmiel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Esther Jayasheela Potti v. Dasyam Samuel Rajasekhar Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“There is no statutory or constitutional right to counsel in a dissolution proceeding.” (noting that, generally, indigent partie s do not have a right to court-appointed counsel in civil proceedings).
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson, f/k/a Dawn Angela Pedri v. Shawn Anthony Pedri, and County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Janelle Rozalind Spah v. Steven Phillip Spah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Heather Lee Burke v. Thomas Joseph Burke, County of Otter Tail, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “[t]here is no statutory or constitutional right to counsel in a dissolution proceeding.” Reed v. Albaaj
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Scott Hoover v. Kelly Jane Hoover Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson v. Shawn Anthony Pedri, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson v. Shawn Anthony Pedri, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see Minn. Stat. § 518.165, subds.
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re Welfare of Children of D.M.T.-r. 802 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In Re Welfare of Children of D.M.T.-r. 802 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
489 (1930) (stating that matters involving domestic relations are reserved to the states); (upholding district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over child-custody matter); (upholding district court’s decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction over child-custody matter).
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007