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: Jose Flores Moran, petitioner, Appellant, 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 omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
is limited to considering whether the trial c ourt abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the eviden ce or by improperly applying the law.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev 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 omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Kuzara, f/k/a Patricia A. McDermott v. John R. McDermott, Hennepin County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 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 omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Kuzara, f/k/a Patricia A. McDermott v. John R. McDermott, Hennepin County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous wh[en] an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 4 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reviewing child custody decision).
In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the “appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
Serena Rae Sullivan v. Robert John Sladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Serena Rae Sullivan v. Robert John Sladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court is required under [Minn. Stat. §] 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.”
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Donna Jean Sjolander f/k/a Donna Jean Carlson v. Steven Gary Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Donna Jean Sjolander f/k/a Donna Jean Carlson v. Steven Gary Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation omitted) (discussing child endangerment in context of custody modification).
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
Aberle v. Faribault Fire Dep’t Relief Ass'n, 230 Minn. 353, 359 , State v. Croatt, 227 Minn. 185, 191
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In reviewing a district court’s relocation decision, we are “limited to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Swanny of Hugo, Inc., d/b/a Carpenter's Steak House v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Swanny of Hugo, Inc., d/b/a Carpenter's Steak House v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”).
In re the Marriage of: Jaime Dawn Starren v. Jason Charles Starren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jaime Dawn Starren v. Jason Charles Starren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(reasoning that modifying a locale restriction falls “within the ambit” of the custody modification statute); Schisel, d at 269 (granting district courts the authority to impose in- state locale restrictions after analyzing section 518.17, subdivision 3, which governs custody orders).
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In reviewing a district court’s relocation decision we are “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 Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-82 (Minn. 2008); (“The law makes no distinction between general determinations of custody and resolution of specific issues of custodial care.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: Holly Beth Ogilvie, n/k/a Holly Beth Gislason v. John Richard Ogilvie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Holly Beth Ogilvie, n/k/a Holly Beth Gislason v. John Richard Ogilvie Minn. Ct. App. 2015