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: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat f/k/a Mark Edward Wetsch v. Barlin Mohamed Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat f/k/a Mark Edward Wetsch v. Barlin Mohamed Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko 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.” (quotations and citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite 4 and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.” d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008).
S. M. K. v. D. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
S. M. K. v. D. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ider appellant’s argument that “the district court erred when it made findings allowing respondent-mother to move the residence of the parties’ child to another state.” Our review of the district court’s decision “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 Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
cases is limited to considering whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION I. Our review of a district court’s decision on a parent’s motion to relocate out of state with a minor child “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).
Ramsey County, Laniesha M. Williams v. Nathan D. Washington, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ramsey County, Laniesha M. Williams v. Nathan D. Washington, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kristina Hacker Tompach v. Paul Christopher Tompach Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kristina Hacker Tompach v. Paul Christopher Tompach Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION Our review of a removal decision “is 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: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.”
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ross Arneson v. Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ross Arneson v. Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a party must make a prima facie case by alleging facts that, if true, would show the existence of all four factors, by submitting an affidavit setting forth facts that support the requested modification of custody, Minn. 1 In the alternative, Mitchell moved the district court to change the parenting-time arrangement so that D.D.
In re the Marriage of: Christina Lynn Clark v. Shon Raymond Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Christina Lynn Clark v. Shon Raymond Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION “Appellate review of custody modifications 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).
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Michael Hudson v. Daniel Joseph Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Michael Hudson v. Daniel Joseph Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
cases is limited to considering whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Rory Lane Smoot v. Jacqueline Ann Smoot Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Rory Lane Smoot v. Jacqueline Ann Smoot Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION I. This court’s review of a removal decision “is 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).
HNA Properties v. Moore 848 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
HNA Properties v. Moore 848 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1; (stating that, in the context of construing a statute, “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Determination of the applicable statutory standard, and the interpretation of statutes, are questions of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” (citations omitted).
Redleaf v. Redleaf 807 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Redleaf v. Redleaf 807 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, (stating that “[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that respondent failed to make a prima facie case of endangerment”); Geibe, d at 780 (stating that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a prima facie showing for modification had not been
Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham 791 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham 791 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(citing Amaral, d at 385 ).
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
articular contexts, and declining to read a cause of action for discrimination for a person not a party to a contract, where the MHRA does not specifically provide one); (declining to interpret the statute so as to “effectively rewrite” it because that prerogative belongs to the legislature rather than the court); (“The policy-based argument ...
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Gaming Enterprise v. Prescott 779 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Gaming Enterprise v. Prescott 779 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
(declining to interpret the statute so as to "effectively rewrite” it because that prerogative belongs to the legislature rather than the court); ("The policy-based argument advanced by the dissent regarding when to measure the endangerment to the child is not without merit, but such a determination belongs to the legis *438 lature, not to this court.”); (explaining that it is the province of
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009