Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Morey v. Peppin, 375 N.W.2d 19.

45 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Turning to the third step, we have explained: “Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.” Id.; (stating that “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if a moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); Nice - (explaining that, if a moving party fails to make a prima facie case, the district court “[is] require[d] .
Kidane Sante Shulbe v. Ashley Rose Henke Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Kidane Sante Shulbe v. Ashley Rose Henke Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.” Szarzynski, d at 292; (stating that “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if a moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); (explaining that, if a moving party fails to make a prima facie case, district court “[is] require[d] .
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).
William Christopher Edrington, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
see also Minn. Stat. § 257.51 (2022) (providing that the MPA includes Minn. Stat. §§ 257.51-.74).
In re the Matter of: M. V. K., d/o/b July 12, 2017, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Under the MPA, “whatever custodial right the father may have cannot arise until paternity has been established pursuant to the Act.”
A. S. v. K. C.-W. (In re C. F. N.) 923 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. S. v. K. C.-W. (In re C. F. N.) 923 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Morey v. Peppin , , 22 (Minn. 1985) (citing Minn. Stat. § 257.57 (1984) ).
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Gunderson v. Preuss , , 547 (Minn. 1983) (recognizing that Minn. Stat. § 518.17 applies to initial custody determinations and Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (2016) governs custody modifications); cf. Morey v. Peppin , , 23-24 (Minn. 1985) (holding that Minn. Stat. § 518.17 governs custody proceedings that are consolidated with paternity actions, but Minn. Stat. § 518.18 governs custody proceedings that are commenced after paternity was established).
Anthony Patrick Huber v. Jason R. Vohnoutka, Darlene Heimerl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Patrick Huber v. Jason R. Vohnoutka, Darlene Heimerl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Finally, “[wjhether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.” Szarzynski d at 292 ( and Nice-Petersen, d at 472 ).
Beardsley v. Garcia 753 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); (stating if moving party fails to make prima facie case, district court “[is] require[d] ...
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
In Re Estate of Palmer 658 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 2003
In Re Estate of Palmer 658 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 2003
In support of the proposition that the Parentage Act’s statute of limitations bars Smith’s probate claim, appellant cites Wit-so v. Overby, a paternity case where we stated, “The MPA [Parentage Act] provides the exclusive bases [sic] for standing to bring an action to determine paternity.” -66 (Minn.2001) ().
Witso v. Overby 627 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 2001
Witso v. Overby 627 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
At the same time, the role of the courts in dissolution proceedings is “strictly limited to that provided for by statute.” (stating that “statutes have superseded the common law in most aspects of family law”); -58 (Minn.1981) (stating that “dissolution is a statutory action and the authority of the trial court is limited to that provided for by statute”) (citation omitted).
Latourell v. Dempsey 518 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1994
Distinguished Latourell v. Dempsey 518 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1994
where this court held that there had been an implicit ruling on custody in an earlier proceeding because a period of two and one-half years had elapsed between judgment on paternity and the father's motion for custody.
M.T.L. v. Dempsey 504 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
M.T.L. v. Dempsey 504 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
3, the supreme court has held that a “formal award of custody is an integral part of paternity proceedings instituted to obtain support for the minor child.”
Wilson v. Speer 499 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Wilson v. Speer 499 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal 457 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal 457 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Nice-Peterson, d at 472 (court determines modification from circumstances arising since the “original or amended custody order”); -25 (Minn.1985) (order determining paternity construed as custody order; new motion for custody a request for modification to be treated under section 518.18).
Psyck v. Wojtysiak 400 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Psyck v. Wojtysiak 400 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ITASCA CTY. SOC. SERV. EX REL. HALL v. David 379 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ITASCA CTY. SOC. SERV. EX REL. HALL v. David 379 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ozenna v. Parmelee 377 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ozenna v. Parmelee 377 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
that a custody proceeding may be concurrent with or consolidated with the paternity action.