Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ekman v. Miller, 812 N.W.2d 892.

49 citing documents.

Sarah Nicole Belich and on Behalf of Minor Child(ren), petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of: Lansa Bakala Dawano, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Chelsea Boyd Kroes, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION OFP Paul argues that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an OFP because Chelsea described past behavior but nothing “imminent” or “immediate.” “We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.”
In the Matter of: Sarah Beth Larson and On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.”
In the Matter of Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A district court abuses its discretion when its findings are not supported by record evidence or when it misapplies the law.”
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(clear error); Braend ex rel.
In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick Schanze, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of Summer Rae Cada on Behalf of Minor Children, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Tracie Nicole O dle and OBO Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jonathan James O … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.”
In the Matter of: Tammy Alberts v. Joseph Alberts Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Tammy Alberts v. Joseph Alberts Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Monica Medina Robinson v. Fannie Krienke Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Monica Medina Robinson v. Fannie Krienke Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Heidi Sue Heller, obo minor children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6a(b); (recognizing that petitioner need not show actual or imminent physical harm to extend an existing OFP).
In the Matter of Stacy Joy Fehr On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Guardianship of Dale Carl Luepke, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court abuses its discretion if its “findings are not supported by record evidence or when it misapplies the law.” (stating that “[a] district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record” (quotation omitted)
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review [factual] findings for clear error, which means that the district court’s fi ndings must be ‘manifestly contrary to the 7 weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.’” (d 512, 514 (Minn. App. 2004)); see In re Civ.
In the Matter of: Heidi Kay Wiplinger obo minor children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Matter of: Katie Lynne Spooner, on behalf of the minor children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.” Ekman v. Miller
In re the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Gaughan, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: Gohar Yesayan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 892, 895 (Minn. App. 2012).
In re the Matter of: Charles Prudhomme, o/b/o minor child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
fit the definition of abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act.” “We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.” Ekman v. Miller
In re the Matter of: Karolina Perminova, for self and o/b/o minor, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Melissa Hall, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Margaret Patricia Fagre, and o/b/o minor children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.” Ekman v. Miller
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. A. M. and M. A. C., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“ The district court is the exclusive judge of credibility.”
In re the Marriage of: Samantha Magdalena Hansen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We will not disturb a district court’s factual findings if reasonable evidence supports them , and reverse only if the findings are “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole,” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.” Ekman v. Miller
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Sara Ann Zahasky, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 6a(b); (petitioner need not show actual physical harm or even imminent harm to extend OFP).
In the Matter of: Naomi Rae Marx, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of: Myrna Wati Ali, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Thompson v. Schrimsher , Ekman v. Miller
In re the Matter of: Ayano Eto Baylor for self and o/b/o Minor, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re: Guardianship of Matthew Lee Johnson, Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court abuses its discretion when its “findings are not supported by record evidence or when it misapplies the law.”
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of: Emma Marie Welter, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of Larissa Michele Hansen on behalf of Minor Child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of: Joanne Lynn Kargel Lund, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court reviews a “district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.”
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David B. Markle v. Metro Metals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
In the Matter of: Laura Kay Ellingsworth, for herself and o/b/o N. R. E. v. Moses Abed Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Laura Kay Ellingsworth, for herself and o/b/o N. R. E. v. Moses Abed Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review the district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because the district court failed to consider what was likely the most probative evidence of the parties’ intent, we cannot conclude that the district court accurately construed the decree in a manner that was “reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted); see also Fredrich v. Indep.
In the Matter of: Gina Marie Johnson, individually and on behalf of Mickey Steele Sullivan v. Jacob Khamis … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of: Gina Marie Johnson, individually and on behalf of Mickey Steele Sullivan v. Jacob Khamis … Minn. Ct. App. 2014