Cited by

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

510 citing documents.

Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Gottsacker v. Gottsacker 664 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 2003
Marriage of Gottsacker v. Gottsacker 664 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 2003
(citing as an abuse of discretion a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record”).
Youker v. Youker 661 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Youker v. Youker 661 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Robert v. Zygmunt 652 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Robert v. Zygmunt 652 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A trial court abuses its discretion by resolving the matter in a manner that is “against the logic and the facts on the record.”
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
To conclude that the district court abused its discretion, the district court’s factual findings must be “against logic and the facts on [the] record.” (citation omitted).
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 Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(concluding this court applies the same standard of review to a CSM’s order as we would apply to an order issued by the district court); -51 (Minn.1984) (recognizing that district courts have broad discretion to provide for the support of the parties’ children, and this court will not reverse the district court’s decision on child support *826 unless that decision was clearly erroneous).
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
For this court to rule the district court abused its discretion, the district court must have resolved the question in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record * * (citation omitted).
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS Whether to modify child support is a decision afforded discretion and a reviewing court will reverse an exercise of that discretion only when the resolution of the question “is against logic and the facts on the record.” ().
Marriage of Lemcke v. Lemcke 623 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Lemcke v. Lemcke 623 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Maurer v. Maurer 623 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 2001
Maurer v. Maurer 623 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers 622 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers 622 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the district court’s resolution of the matter “is against logic and the *763 facts on record * * *.” (citation omitted).
Marriage of Lund v. Lund 615 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Lund v. Lund 615 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
We will not find an abuse of discretion absent “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
This court will not find an abuse of discretion unless the district court’s resolution of the matter “is against logic and the facts on record.” (citation omitted).
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The district court will be found to have abused its discretion only if its decision is based on “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of Gully v. Gully 599 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Gully v. Gully 599 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1999
We will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the court abused its broad discretion by making “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against the logic and the facts on [the] record.”
Winona County Department of Human Services v. Casper 593 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Fulmer v. Fulmer 594 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Winona County Department of Human Services v. Casper 593 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Fulmer v. Fulmer 594 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Guyer v. Guyer 587 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1999