Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47.

510 citing documents.

Davis v. Davis 394 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
It is well established that the decision to modify a child support order lies in the broad and sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will reverse for an abuse of discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Wicks v. Falkowski 394 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wicks v. Falkowski 394 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The appellate court will reverse for an abuse of that discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on the *211 record.”
Marriage of Currey v. Currey 393 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Currey v. Currey 393 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS I. Property Division Property and maintenance decisions will be affirmed unless the trial court abuses its broad discretion and reached “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of Graser v. Graser 392 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Witeli v. Witeli 392 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Witeli v. Witeli 392 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The decision to modify a child support order lies in the broad discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will reverse only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” ().
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 392 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 392 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS This court will reverse for an abuse of discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” ().
Carver County Community Social Services v. Fritzke 392 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Carver County Community Social Services v. Fritzke 392 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This court will reverse for an abuse of that discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” ().
In Re the Welfare of J.W. 391 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
In Re the Welfare of J.W. 391 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
§ 260.221(b)(7)); (modification of custody); (visitation rights); (removing child from state); (voluntary termination of parental rights); State ex.
MacKin v. MacKin 392 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
MacKin v. MacKin 392 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of J.J.B. 390 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1986
In Re the Welfare of J.J.B. 390 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1986
See, (marital dissolution custody determinations); (modification of child custody award); (visitation rights); (custodial parent removing child from state); State ex rel.
Marriage of Nash v. Nash 388 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Nash v. Nash 388 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
LeTendre v. LeTendre 388 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
LeTendre v. LeTendre 388 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The decision to modify a child support order lies in the broad and sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will reverse for an abuse of that discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record * *
Marriage of Van Dyke v. Van Dyke 386 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Van Dyke v. Van Dyke 386 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Vogt v. Vogt 385 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Vogt v. Vogt 385 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
It is well established that the decision to modify a child support order lies in the broad and sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will reverse for an abuse of that discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Justis v. Justis 384 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Justis v. Justis 384 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Ranik v. Ranik 383 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Ranik v. Ranik 383 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 383 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 383 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sand v. Sand 379 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Sand v. Sand 379 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
DISCUSSION I The trial court is afforded broad discretion with respect to spousal maintenance; “[t]here must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record before this court will find that the trial court abused its discretion.” ().
Marriage of Napier v. Napier 374 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Napier v. Napier 374 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 372 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 372 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 371 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 371 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court is accorded broad discretion with respect to spousal maintenance and “[tjhere must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record before this court will find that the trial court abused its discretion.” (