Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Silbaugh v. Silbaugh, 543 N.W.2d 639.

39 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.D.D. and D.A.A., Parents Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.D.D. and D.A.A., Parents Minn. 2025
(resolving a motion to modify custody based on the parties’ affidavits).
Minn. 2025
(resolving a motion to modify custody based on the parties’ affidavits).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Grace Friesen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. R. B., Commissioner of Human Services, Legal … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court “abuse[s] its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Custody of: B. L. F., Cherries Chamberlain, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(concluding psychologist’s report after interviewing children was “arguably inconsistent with the provisions of the judgment and decree” granting the parties joint legal custody because it was “made without [mother’s] knowledge or consent”) .
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. H., R. W. G., and … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court “abuse[s] its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Dodamwalage Dinesh Jayawardena, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: N. A. L. and D. E. S., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court “abuse[s] its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law .”
In re the Marriage of: Anna Modeo, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
is limited to considering ‘whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’” Goldman v. Greenwood , ( (quoting Pikula v. Pikula , )).
In re the Custody of A.M.W. Kelly James Wadsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: J. S. S., petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court “abuse[s] its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
at 399 ; (permitting disposition without evidentiary hearing in event proponent fails to make a prima facie showing for relocation).
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
II Removal decisions for custodial arrangements not involving parenting plans are reviewed to determine whether “the *493 trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” ().
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by