Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285.

197 citing documents.

Jessica Jane Wittner v. Joshua Jonathan Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-45 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that “an affidavit based almost entirely on unsubstantiated allegations” is not sufficient to modify custody).
City of Shorewood v. Ronald R. Johnson, Dee L. Johnson, First Bank National Association, Southdale Office Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Shorewood v. Ronald R. Johnson, Dee L. Johnson, First Bank National Association, Southdale Office 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
(“Appellant’s affidavit was devoid of allegations supported by any specific, credible evidence.”).
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
a district court’s custody ruling.”
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
8 discretionary with the district court.” see also Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Holly v. Anderson v. Derrik T. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Holly v. Anderson v. Derrik T. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Conduct- based attorney-fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.” -65 (Minn. App. 2000) (referring to “the breadth of the district court’s discretion in awarding conduct-based attorney fees” and finding no abuse of its “broad discretion”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne 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 Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Paul Timothy Patock v. Cathy Liane Patock n/k/a Cathy Liane Mehr, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Paul Timothy Patock v. Cathy Liane Patock n/k/a Cathy Liane Mehr, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Reily Peters v. Deanna Lynn Peters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Reily Peters v. Deanna Lynn Peters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(need- 9 based fees); (conduct- based fees).
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 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
“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell 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
But “conclusory allegations do not support a prima facie case” for custody modification, d 563, 571 (Minn. App. 2013), and “do not require an evidentiary hearing,”
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
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minn. Stat. § 518.185 (2012)
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
is dispositive of whether an evi-dentiary hearing will occur....”
Phelps v. State 823 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Phelps v. State 823 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-95 (Minn.App.2007) (reversing and remanding an award of rule 9 sanctions because neither the moving party nor the district court followed the procedural requirements of rule 9).
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 Szarzynski v. Szarzynski (outlining the Nice-Petersen procedure and the standards for reviewing each requisite determination).
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(concluding that matter was not moot when some of requested relief could still be granted).
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota & Wisconsin Lakes & Pines 768 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota & Wisconsin Lakes & Pines 768 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(reasoning that caselaw predating adoption of rule of general practice was superseded by rule); (noting that caselaw interpreting rule of civil procedure was superseded by subsequent enactment of statute on same subject).
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Safety, -92 (Minn.App.2007).