DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666.

71 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Justin Benjamin Merritt v. Virginia Witherspoon Merritt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: John Andrew Sinnott v. Kelli Anne Sinnott, n/k/a Kelli Anne Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Mishaun Ahmad v. Nancy J. Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
5 170, 175 (Minn. App. 2020); Melius v. Melius
In the Marriage of: Roberta Jo Nickel v. Joshua Peter Nickel, County of Cottonwood Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Lauren Elizabeth Schrock v. Richard Albert Kuhn Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: William T. Bienemann v. Yelena Y. Bienemann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker v. Laura Margaret Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2021
All eight statutory factors are relevant and “no single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha v. Deepak Kademani Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Amy Jo Yurek, n/k/a Amy Jo Sellers v. Michael Francis Yurek Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Deborah Lynn Nichols v. Scott Gerald Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“I n essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: Caryn Blaine Evans v. Keith Eric Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne v. John Justin Wauzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs v. Charlene Lila Henrichs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Herman Goldenberg v. Karen Lisa Yashar Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Cynthia A. Linnerooth v. Gerald R. Linnerooth Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But “[n]o single factor is dispositive.” d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Aaron Di Luong v. Julie Ho Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski v. Olga Kedrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning v. Daniel H. Gruenstein Minn. Ct. App. 2019
WL 4263161, at *7 ( 9 (Minn. App. 2009) ()).
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood v. Brad Wesley Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders v. Joseph James Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Gessner v. Gessner , Minn. R. Civ.
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Maiers v. Maiers , , 668-69 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris v. Robert Lee Hiniker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Joseph Parnell v. Christine Melanie Parnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3 (2018).1 When addressing the amount and duration of a maintenance award, “[i]n essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
Marjorie A. Gomes v. James D. Meyer, County of Clay, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski v. Joan Susanne Pnewski Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Matter of: Colleen Jea’ne Olson v. Jeremy Michael Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Justin James Jurkovich v. Rebecca Jean Jurkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Michele Lura Honderich-Flannery v. Christopher John Flannery Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney v. Keith Joseph Gorney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher v. Benjamin Moore Belcher, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Julie M. Steen v. Keven L. Steen 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
“No single factor is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal v. David Michael Coleal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams v. Cheryl Constance Stevens Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Laura Diane Hermer v. Lawrence James Cisek, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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
We apply “a clearly erroneous standard of review to a district court’s findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In essence, the district court balances the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.”
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 re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We apply a clearly erroneous standard of review to a district court’s findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016