Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707.

37 citing documents.

Kidane Sante Shulbe, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[W]hen reviewing a child support magistrate’s order in an expedited child support process proceeding, we will apply the same standard of review that we would apply to the order if it had been issued by a district court.”
In Re the Custody of A.L.A.; Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This court “reviews a district court’s decision to dismiss a claim with prejudice under an abuse of discretion standard.”
In re the Custody of BJL (DOB 1/8/2018), Nicholas T. White v. Adrianna L Loesch, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Custody of BJL (DOB 1/8/2018), Nicholas T. White v. Adrianna L Loesch, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In such a proceeding, a CSM “has authority to establish, modify, and enforce child support,” but may not decide issues related to the “establishment, modification, or enforcement of custody or parenting time,” Minn. R. Gen.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Questions of civil procedure are issues of law upon which [appellate courts] owe[] no deference to the district court’s decision.”).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew James Beland, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hesse v. Hesse , Brazinsky v. Brazinsky
State of MN ex rel. Kandiyohi County Family Services, Plaintiff, o/b/o Kristi A. Barber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
28, 2006); see also Dunshee v. Douglas , (requiring a “clear abuse of discretion”); (applying the same standard of review to a decision made by a CSM that would apply if the decision had been made by a district court judge).
Jessica Lin Love, n/k/a/ Jessica Lin Lopez Love, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brazinsky v. Brazinsky , see also Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Bradley Joseph Patraw, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that authority of CSM with respect to establishing, modifyi ng, and enforcing child support is comparable to that of district court).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson, f/k/a Dawn Angela Pedri, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Davis, d at 826 ; ( “[W]hen reviewing a child support 5 magistrate’s order in an expedited child support process proceeding we will apply the same standard of review that we would apply to the order if it had been issued by a district court judge.”).
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elio Fumagalli, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
347-48 (Minn. 2002); Brazinsky v. Brazinsk y
In re the Marriage of: Joanna Brooks Benson, f/k/a Joanna Lee Brooks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hennepin County, Hawa H. Ibrhim v. Hussein Y. Dawid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hennepin County, Hawa H. Ibrhim v. Hussein Y. Dawid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Mechtel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Mechtel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham 791 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham 791 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that appellate court applies the same standard of review to a CSM’s decision as it would to a decision of the district court).
Vogelsberg v. Vogelsberg 672 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Vogelsberg v. Vogelsberg 672 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(noting that district courts review a CSM’s decision de novo); (noting that appellate courts review a district court’s custody modifications under abuse-of-discretion standard); (noting that appellate courts apply the same standard of review to orders issued by the CSM as they apply to orders issued by the district court).
In Re Paternity of JMV 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Valento v. Swenson 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Valento v. Swenson 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Paternity of JMV 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Ramsey Cty. Ex Rel. Pierce Cty., Wis. 645 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Ramsey Cty. Ex Rel. Pierce Cty., Wis. 645 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Aug.21, 2001); (stating that “when reviewing a child support magistrate’s order in an expedited child support process proceeding, [the court of appeals] will apply the same standard of review that [it] would apply to the order if it had been issued by a district court”).
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(concluding this court applies the same standard of review to a CSM’s order as we would apply to an order issued by the district court); -51 (Minn.1984) (recognizing that district courts have broad discretion to provide for the support of the parties’ chi
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001