Cited by

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

510 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Larry Joe Bolton v. Susan Mary Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984).
In re the Marriage of: DeWayne Stanley Farr v. Sophia Marie Farr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: DeWayne Stanley Farr v. Sophia Marie Farr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“There must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record before this court will find that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A]ppellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.” (stating that a district court abuses its discretion when its resolution of a matter is “against logic and the facts on record”).
In the Marriage of: Vincent Daniel Levy v. Michelle Ann Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Marriage of: Vincent Daniel Levy v. Michelle Ann Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
support of the children of the parties.”
In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(parenting time); (child support).
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When dividing property, a district court abuses its discretion when it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
8 A district court has broad discretion in decisions regarding spousal maintenance, and this court applies an abuse-of- discretion standard of review, 41 (Minn. 1982).
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
We will reverse for an abuse of discretion where we find “a ‘clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.’ ” ().
Foster v. Foster 802 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Foster v. Foster 802 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A district court abuses its discretion when evidence in the record does not support the factual findings, the court misapplied the law, or the court settles a dispute in a way “that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Pollard v. Crowghost 794 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Pollard v. Crowghost 794 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But the district court has broad discretion in dividing property, and this court will not find an abuse of discretion unless there is “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
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
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
A district court abuses its discretion when it resolves the matter in a manner that is “against logic and the facts on record.”
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
A district court abuses its discretion by resolving the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” see Chosa ex rel.
Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“There 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 Reed v. Albaaj 723 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Reed v. Albaaj 723 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(against logic); (application of law).
Marriage of Eustathiades v. Bowman 695 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Eustathiades v. Bowman 695 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Its decision will not be altered on appeal unless it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 678 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 678 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004