Cited by

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

359 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Eboni Yolanda SternJohn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Goldman v. Greenwood , .
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has bee n made.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations and citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Amy Alyssa Post, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: David Brian Toft, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” In re Marriage of 3 Goldman, (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).
Patrick Hugh Stack, et al., petitioners, Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Brett William Leschinsky, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court is required under section 518.18(d) to conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification.” Goldman v. Greenwood
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. K., T. R., and D. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Timothy Langdon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Antoinette Kafui Totimeh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record,” leaving us with a “definite and firm convictio n that a mistake has been 4 made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The concept of endangerment is “unusually imprecise.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted ).
Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.) 913 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2018
Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.) 913 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2018
Goldman v. Greenwood , , 282 (Minn. 2008) (citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Kerry J. Olson, a/k/a Kerry Ciardelli-Olson, n/k/a Kerry J. Ciardelli, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A factual fi nding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record,” Putz v. Putz , leaving the 4 reviewing court with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistak e has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Anna Modeo, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
is limited to considering ‘whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’” Goldman v. Greenwood , ( (quoting Pikula v. Pikula , )).
In re the Custody of: A. N. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court has “broad discretion in determining custody matters.” (quotation omitted) .
Ross Ronald Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court has “broad discretion in determining custody matters.” (q uotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Linde Anne Sayen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” ().
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
See Goldman v. Greenwood , , 281-82 (Minn. 2008).
Souhsiung Jack Chiu, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. S. P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Marriage of Medvedovski v. Medvedovski 903 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marriage of Medvedovski v. Medvedovski 903 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Appellate review of custody modification and removal cases is limited to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotations omitted) (citation omitted).
In re the Custody of A.M.W. Kelly James Wadsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous where this “court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Ann Fenlon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A finding is clearly erroneous “where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate review of custody-modification determinations “is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” d 279, 281-82 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Robert Repp, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
To establish a prima facie case, the party seeking custody modification must allege that: (1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical health,, emotional he
In re the Marriage of: Rebekah L. Bennett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2016)
In re the Matter of: Emily M. Pederson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
cases is limited to considering 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 Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that an appellate court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations ); Foster v. Foster , (“[W]e are not permitted to reweigh the evidence when reviewing a district court’s decision to determine whether the court abused its discretion.”)
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous where this “court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
M & G Services, Inc. v. Buffalo Lake Advanced Biofuels, LLC 895 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
M & G Services, Inc. v. Buffalo Lake Advanced Biofuels, LLC 895 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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 and citations omitted).
In re the Matter of: J. S. S., petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Wakisha Nicole Fortwengler, n/k/a Alexa Nicole Schultz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (iv) (2016); (describing elements of prima facie case for modification) .