Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Davis v. Davis, 631 N.W.2d 822.

38 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And in Davis v. Davis, we reversed and remanded for additional findings because a child-support magistrate “made no findings regarding mother’s business expenses beyond deductions for medical and dental insurance, taxes, and social security.”
A23-1981 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We addressed a similar issue in a child-support case and reversed a district court’s income determination when it “made no findings regarding mother’s business expenses beyond deductions for medical and dental insurance, taxes, and social security.” -28 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Custody of A.W.W: Nicholas Taylor Wehrwein v. Patricia Katrine Hascall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Custody of A.W.W: Nicholas Taylor Wehrwein v. Patricia Katrine Hascall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bd., (discussing 10 discretionary powers conferred by statute); see also, (reviewing a previous permutation of section 257.66 and noting that the district court has broad discretion to determine child-support obligations, including past child support); -11 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding a district court may order retroactive child supp
In Re the Matter of the Custody of A. C. T. (DOB 8/01/2018), Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 53.07 (providing for de novo revie w of a master’s findings); (stating that district courts review child support magistrate decisions de novo); (stating that district courts do not review family court referee findings for clear error).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Zondra A. Thompson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(remanding “for reconsideration of mother’s legitimate business expenses” when district court made no findings about mother’s business expenses outside insurance, taxes, and social security).
Shane Foss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Davis v. Davis , Gully v. Gully
Nicole A. Nyhus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson, f/k/a Dawn Angela Pedri, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 822, 825 (Minn. App. 2001).
County of Ramsey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 822, 825 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lisa Jensen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Kilpatrick, d at 530 n.2; Blonigen, d at 280.
In re the Marriage of: Heather Lee Burke, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 822, 825-26 (Minn. App. 2001).
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
In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth L. Kuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth L. Kuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review “the district court’s decision confirming the CSM’s order under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Generally, where no prior order to pay child support exists, it is 9 improper to give a support order retroactive effect.”).
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, whe[n] no prior order to pay child support exists, it is improper to give a support order retroactive effect.”
Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen 814 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen 814 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Grant v. Koser 809 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Grant v. Koser 809 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hubbard County Health & Human Services v. Zacher 742 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hubbard County Health & Human Services v. Zacher 742 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Citizens Concerned for Kids v. Yellow Medicine East Independent School District No. 2190 703 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Citizens Concerned for Kids v. Yellow Medicine East Independent School District No. 2190 703 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Anoka Ex Rel. Hassan v. Roba 690 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
County of Anoka Ex Rel. Hassan v. Roba 690 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
378.01 advisory comm, emt.
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); (no
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk 668 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk 668 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003