DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius, 765 N.W.2d 411.

103 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Robert David Stoffey v. Mari Lou Stoffey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Dennis Lee Polla v. Jolene Theresa Polla, n/k/a Jolene Theresa Chan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless cle arly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Larry A. Letsinger v. Lori A. Letsinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A di strict court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams v. Cheryl Constance Stevens Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Scott Hoover v. Kelly Jane Hoover Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will only be reversed if the court abused its discretion and the abuse of discretion prejudiced the objecting party.”
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Emily M. Pederson v. Scott H. Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Emily M. Pederson v. Scott H. Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kari Wynn Wahlstrom v. Eric David Wahlstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kari Wynn Wahlstrom v. Eric David Wahlstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Estate of: Orville C. Jacobson, Deceased In the Matter of the Estate of: … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Estate of: Orville C. Jacobson, Deceased In the Matter of the Estate of: … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“A district court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will only be reversed if the court abused its discretion and the abuse of discretion prejudiced the objecting party.”).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The purpose of the award is to “allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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 re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D’Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D’Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Lori Austin Sager v. Rene Gerold Sager Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Lori Austin Sager v. Rene Gerold Sager Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[The appellate courts] review[] questions of law 4 related to spousal maintenance de novo,” including questions regarding statutory interpretation and jurisdiction
Hennepin County, Olga G. Romanova v. Sergey A. Romanov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hennepin County, Olga G. Romanova v. Sergey A. Romanov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[We] review[] questions of law related to spousal maintenance de novo[,]” including questions regarding jurisdiction and statutory interpretation.
In re the Marriage of: Anne Elizabeth Castle-Heaney v. Bruce Edward Heaney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Anne Elizabeth Castle-Heaney v. Bruce Edward Heaney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The standard of review in spousal- maintenance determinations is whether the district court abused its discretion by improperly applying the law or making findings unsupported by the evidence.” (citation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Donald R. Filler v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Donald R. Filler v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Inc., 306 Minn. 352, 356, (stating that to prevail on appeal, the appellant must show both error and prejudice resulting from it); (stating that an evidentiary error is not prejudicial unless it might reasonably have influenced the trier of fact and changed the result of the trial).
Marriage of Passolt v. Passolt 804 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Passolt v. Passolt 804 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Maiers v. Maiers 775 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2009