Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Butt v. Schmidt, 747 N.W.2d 566.

53 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(making this statement regarding the predecessor statute to section 518A.32).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(analyzing the predecessor statute to Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 (2022)).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(other citation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Tonya M. Keim v. Jeremy R. Keim, County of Fillmore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Tonya M. Keim v. Jeremy R. Keim, County of Fillmore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Daniela Tate v. Daniel Lee Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Daniela Tate v. Daniel Lee Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(making this statement regarding the predecessor statute to section 518A.32).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(Minn. 1994); (outlining the requirements that must be met to divest a district court of jurisdiction).
In re the Marriage of: Deborah Ann Barnett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
( listing the four requirements); see also, -08 (Minn. App. 1989) (concluding that the district court had authority to modify because the parties’ Karon waiver lacked express divestiture language), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of: Kathryn Marie Larson, on behalf of Minor Child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that when party is “in exclusive possession” of evidence and fails to produce it, “an unfavorable inference may be drawn about that party as to the relevant issue”).
Mower County Health and Human Services, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[W]e will reverse a [CSM]’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the [CSM] abused [her] broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Trung Thien Do, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ly its permanent child support order retroactively because the appellant failed to raise the issue at any time during his dissolution proceedings, but also acknowledged that the appellant “could have moved to amend or vacate the temporary order anytime before the court entered its final decree, and if he had done so, the modification statute would have allowed for retroactive application.”
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Winesett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Melius v. Melius , (maintenance); Butt v. Schmidt , (support).
A19-1067 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Respondent cites Butt v. Schmidt for the idea that “at some point the burden of proof/production shifts.”
In the Matter of: Tamara Lynn Kriesel, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Heidi Renae Karn-Kirwin, n/k/a Heidi Renae Karn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that a reviewing court considers only issues presented to and considered by the district court); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [ his] favor when one of the reasons it
In re the Marriage of: Diana Lynne Neumann, n/k/a Diana Lynne deVries, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Regarding an older version of the statute, our supreme court has said that if the trier of fact “lacks sufficient information , [the statute] directs the court to calculate income for purp oses of child support based on [the] minimum wage.”
In re the Marriage of: Dodamwalage Dinesh Jayawardena, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(child support); Melius v. Melius , (spousal maintenance).
In re the Marriage of: Camilla Renae Lee, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if it abused its broad discretion with a determination “that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.3 (Minn. 2008) (citing Kmetz, d at 100-01).
Nicole A. Nyhus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court will reverse a district court’s order regar ding child support only if the district court abused its broad discretion by reaching a conclusion “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Butt v. Schmidt , (quotation omitted).
In re the Custody of M. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An appellate court will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if the district court abused its broad discre tion by reaching the question in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Butt v. Schmidt , (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Peter H. Stier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, ( noting, in a 9 child-support dispute, that “we have stated that if a party is in exclusive possession of evidence and that party fails to produce the evidence, an unfavorable inference may be drawn about that party as to the relevant issue”); Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428, 175
Hennepin County, Hawa H. Ibrhim v. Hussein Y. Dawid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hennepin County, Hawa H. Ibrhim v. Hussein Y. Dawid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elizabeth Mary Ferguson v. Bradley Alan Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Elizabeth Mary Ferguson v. Bradley Alan Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation and citations omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd.
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Patricia Annette Wallace, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Patricia Annette Wallace, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 566, 578 (Minn. 2008) ().
In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Adeline E. Chapman. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Adeline E. Chapman. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hennepin County, Olga G. Romanova v. Sergey A. Romanov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hennepin County, Olga G. Romanova v. Sergey A. Romanov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the district court abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Stacy Elizabeth Reeves v. Brian Lawrence Reeves, Hennepin County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Stacy Elizabeth Reeves v. Brian Lawrence Reeves, Hennepin County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(remanding case to district court to follow proper procedure for imputing income).
In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(quotation and citations omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 518.522, subd.
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
(stating party may move for modification of temporary support order).
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-45 (Minn.1994); superseded in part by statute, 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 248, § 7, at 838 (codified at Minn.Stat.
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010