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: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Beland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: John Erik Ensrud, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Laura Marie Anderson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Diane Faye Meyer, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Esther Jayasheela Potti, petitioner, Respondent, 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: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Janelle Rozalind Spah, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Heather Lee Burke, petitioner, Respondent, 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: 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