Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515.

41 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 6 437, 440-43 (Minn. 2018)
Joseph Deidrick v. Clarissa Dozier Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Joseph Deidrick v. Clarissa Dozier Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Custody provisions contained in a stipulated decree must be accorded a good deal of deference, in that they represent the terms specifically agreed to by the parties and adopted by the court.” d 515, 520 (Minn. 1993).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (concluding that mother’s motion to modify parenting time was a request to modify physical custody because, although the proposed modification would “leav[e] intact the ‘joint legal and joint physical’ denomination of the arrangement,” the modification would give father “virtually no custody durin
In re the Marriage of: Danielle Elizabeth Dressel, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Cory Michael Bayer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, (concluding that mother’s motion to modify parenting time was a request to modify physical custody because, although the proposed modification 1 Of the five, the endangerment basis is the one applicable here.
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ayers v. Ayers , Minn. R. Civ.
Fairmont Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Matter of: Brian Eugene Wolf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Finally, we note that parties may, and often do, ask the district court to modify the meaning of terms defined by statute or caselaw , such as joint legal custody and primary residence.3 See, e.g. , Goldman v. Greenwood , -81 (Minn. 2008) (reviewing grant of sole legal custody with added restriction against moving child out-of- state); (stating that “we must accept the label of joint legal .
Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.) 913 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2018
Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.) 913 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2018
Ayers v. Ayers , , 520 (Minn. 1993).
In re the Custody of: A. N. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Ayers v. Ayers , (holding that joint physical custody arrangement does not preclude one parent’s residence being designated as primary).
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the parties agree in writing to the application of a different standard.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that determining the proper statutory standard to be applied is a question of 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
Determination of the applicable statutory standard, and the interpretation of statutes, are questions of law that we review de novo.
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 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
Johnson-Smolak v. Fink 703 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Johnson-Smolak v. Fink 703 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
§ 518.18(e) (2004), which states that when a joint custodian seeks permission to move the child’s residence to another state, the court must analyze the request using the best interests factors of Minn.Stat.
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, , 518 *466 (Minn.1993) (noting incorrect application of law is an abuse of discretion in custody-cases); Shepard v. City of St.
Marriage of Schlichting v. Paulus 632 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Schlichting v. Paulus 632 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Rumney v. Rumney 611 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Rumney v. Rumney 611 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993