Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Geibe v. Geibe, 571 N.W.2d 774.

86 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A child’s strong preference to change residence after a custody decree can constitute a change in circumstances.”
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 the original custody order; it cannot be a continuation of conditions existing prior to the order.”
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(reviewing whether a district court had properly ruled on a custody-modification dispute without holding an evidentiary hearing and applying the cus *802 tody-modifícation prima facie test).
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
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
(noting that Ross did not cite Nice-Petersen and that this court and the supreme court had applied Nice-Petersen's abuse-of-discretion standard of review in cases decided subsequent to Ross).
Barry v. St. Anthony-New Brighton Independent School District 282 781 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Barry v. St. Anthony-New Brighton Independent School District 282 781 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In deciding whether a party makes a prima facie ease to modify custody, “the court must accept the facts in the moving party’s affidavits as true, and the allegations do not need independent substantiation.”
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
1] rest on the centrality of continuity of care and environment” and "emphasized the importance of stability in custody determinations”); Auge, d at 399 (quotation omitted) (stating courts should restrict their interference in familial decisions because "continuity and stability in relationships are important for the child”); ("Minnesota law rests on a presumption that stability of custody is in a child’s best interests.”).
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
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 699 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 699 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002