Cited by

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

364 citing documents.

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
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Amaral, d at 385 ; (stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
18, 1987); (stating that endangerment for purposes of Minn.Stat.
Sitek v. Striker 764 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sitek v. Striker 764 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
3(b), (c) (2006), , 283 n.5 (Minn.2008), for the proposition that custody cannot be based on the condition that a parent live in a certain area, id.