Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.), 913 N.W.2d 437.

69 citing documents.

Michael Anthony Guardia, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Custody of: C.A.M., Cody A. Myers, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
7 After the car chase ended and Smith was fleeing separately from his co-conspirators, he chose to shoot at the police officer who was pursuing him.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 573 (Minn. App. 2017), rev’d on other grounds
In re the matter of: Michael John Hernandez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Alice Jones, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And the district court denied father’s request to interview the childr en because there was no “pending motion to modify custody/parenting time.” After the supreme court released father moved for amended findings granting his requested parenting-time modification.
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Warren Rupp, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
(noting the 2 The district court also considered subdivision 1(b)(4) (stating that conduct of a party that does not affect the party’s relationship with the child should be disregarded); (5) (noting that “[d]isability alone .
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Custody of P. K. M. S. and K. D. S., Jeremy Melvin Selin, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 437, 440 (Minn. 2018) (noting t he two applicable standards).
In re the Custody of: B. L. F. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christensen v. Healey , d 437, 440 (Minn. 2018); see Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2018).
In re the Marriage of: Eboni Yolanda SternJohn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2018)
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
That statute “requires a [district] co urt to retain the custody arrangement that was establishe d by the prior order unless the party seeking the modification makes a prima facie case for modification.” Amarreh v. Amarreh , ().
In re the Marriage of: Brett William Leschinsky, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the party establishes a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e , t h e district court must then hold an evidentiary hearing to conside r evidence on each factor.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(rejecting a bright-line rule for determining whether a request to change parenting time was actually a motion to modify custody in part because it conflict e d “ w i t h t h e g o v e r n i n g principle that a district court has broad discretion in determi ning custody and parenting time ma
In re the Custody of: K. M. A. Daniel Cory Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
’” (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd.
Amarreh v. Amarreh 918 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Amarreh v. Amarreh 918 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
440 (Minn. 2018) (quotations omitted).