Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279.

364 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ivan Ray Vaughan Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Marriage of: Erin Renae McKissock n/k/a Erin Renae Kelly v. Brian Todd McKissock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Determination of the applicable statutory standard and the interpretation of statutes are questions of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Merwin Andrew Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See id.; (explaining that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
State of Minnesota v. Bert Strom Minn. Ct. App. 2023
( recognizing that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
Arctos Wealth Management and Fiduciary LLC, o/b/o Irvin John Cooper, Sr. v. Kathy Jeno, aka Kathy Brown, aka … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts give “deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”
In re the Marriage of: Russell Vander Wiel v. Sharna Ann Wahlgren Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 52.01; (applying rule 52.01 in a family-law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Danielle Elizabeth Dressel v. Nathan David Dressel Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Richard Leo Bassing v. Barbara Laraine Bassing Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Alison Lee Henry, f/k/a Alison Lee Underthun, f/k/a Alison Underthun-Meilahn v. Peter Jason … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In reviewing the district court’s relocation decision, this court considers “whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Matter of: Sean Patrick Dempsey v. Martalisbet Horrocks Loman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Greda Lynn v. Tracey Joe McConnell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 61 (requiring courts to disregard harmless error); (applying rule 61 in a child -custody appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Banks, Bail Bonds Doctor, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 61 (directing courts to “disregard any error” that does not affect a party’s substantial rights); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.
The Townhomes of Raspberry Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Charles Stuurop Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Signature Select Contracting, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 279, 281- 82 (Minn. 2008).
In re the Marriage of: Anthony Michael Bottolene v. Beleyou Getachew Bottolene, County of Wright, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The circumstances constituting endangerment are “unusually imprecise,” but must amount to a “significant degree of danger.”
In re the Matter of: Kelsey Anne Canaday v. Haley Jo Canaday, and Edward Lee Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Appellate review of custody modification and removal cases is limited to considering whether the trial court abused its discretion.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Cory Michael Bayer v. Alissa Lea Bayer, n/k/a Alissa Lea Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Because the district court has broad discretion in making custody determinations, our review “is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” - 82 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Donald Caya Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See id.; (stating that “the conjunction ‘or’ [i]s disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Custody of: T.L.H. DOB 12/05/2014, Beth A. Hastings v. Brittany L. Tuinder, and Raey M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 52.01; (applying rule 52.01 in a family-law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Joseph Lee v. Brittany Kaye Lee, n/k/a Brittany Kay Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Keith Melvin Baerg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive.”).
State of Minnesota v. Antone David Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera v. Joel Wayne Biebighauser, County of Dakota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Our review of custody determinations is limited to “whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” - 82 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Stenner Shelley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Modtland, d at 607; (stating that Minnesota courts interpret “or” as disjunctive rather than conjunctive).
In the Matter of: Mara Jareth Butler, and on behalf of minors v. Andrew John Jakes Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.
Miguel Lionel Garza v. Minh Van Tran Thi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-82 (Minn. 2008); 3 (Minn. App. 2021) ( noting that “[d]ecisions regarding school choice are educational decisions within the ambit of legal custody”), rev. denied (Minn. May 18, 2021).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Holly Joy Klick v. Timothy Richard Klick Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. Stat. §§ 518.175, .18 (2020)
In the Matter of Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-RM4 and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Christine Stelben Connolly v. Sean Timothy Connolly Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); see Goldman v. Greenwood , (citing this as pect of Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic v. Kyle Dalke Bachmayer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family law appeal); see also Katz v. Katz , (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reasons).
Amanda Emele v. Felix Emele Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Jean Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Marriage of: Jacinda Eve Mills v. Joshua James Mills Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When an issue turns on the district court’s findings of fact, we review the findings for clear error, “giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility” and reversing only if we are left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
Megan Marie Johnson v. Richard Preston Blackwell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Robert O’Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(recognizing that Minnesota appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm v. Joseph Clark Solinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We give deference to the “district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Ann Roth v. David Arthur Roth, Washington County Community Services, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: John Edward Warrington v. Karen Lee Warrington Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
Nicholas David Wivinus v. Nicole Lynette Nelson Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Terry Carlton Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Aaron Burk Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rath er than conjunctive”).
Sokkhan Ka v. Mai Yia Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Alison Margaret Perry v. Douglas Perry, et al., Expert Sheet Metal, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family appeal); Hesse v. Hesse , (noting that appellate courts ignore prejudicial error when the prejudice is de minimis); see also Katz v. Katz , (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.H., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(b)(2); (stating that “or” is generally disjunctive).
State of Minnesota v. Deontranelle Leslie Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Guardianship of: Ryan Van Huyen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 61; (citing Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota v. Cody Michael Thorson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Joy Krishnan, f/k/a Beuning v. Eric James Beuning Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if “an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Brooks J. Waldron v. Uneica Nicole Garrett Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Custody Petition of: Dominic Jerome Sublet v. Lori Catherine Schulz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION We limit o ur review of a district court’s determination on a motion to modify custody “to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law .” (quotation omitted) .