Cited by

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

510 citing documents.

Marriage of McNulty v. McNulty 495 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of McNulty v. McNulty 495 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
ANALYSIS A trial court has broad discretion in determining child support and will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if there is a “clearly erroneous conclusion * * * against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Simmons v. Simmons 486 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Simmons v. Simmons 486 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Bourassa v. Bourassa 481 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sherburne County Social Services Ex Rel. Schafer v. Riedle 481 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sherburne County Social Services Ex Rel. Schafer v. Riedle 481 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The trial court has broad discretion to set child support, and this court will find an abuse of that discretion only where it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on the record.” ().
Marriage of Bourassa v. Bourassa 481 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Maeder v. Maeder 480 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Maeder v. Maeder 480 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
“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.”
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Disrud v. Disrud 474 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Disrud v. Disrud 474 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Hayes v. Hayes 473 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Hayes v. Hayes 473 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Swick v. Swick 467 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Swick v. Swick 467 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Beltz v. Beltz 466 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Beltz v. Beltz 466 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Reinke v. Reinke 464 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Reinke v. Reinke 464 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of McClenahan v. Warner 461 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of McClenahan v. Warner 461 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This decision was within the trial court’s broad discretion and was not a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” Moylan, d at 864 ().
Marriage of Novak v. Novak 458 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Novak v. Novak 458 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Karypis v. Karypis 458 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Karypis v. Karypis 458 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finch v. Marusich 457 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finch v. Marusich 457 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
On appeal this court will reverse only when the trial court has abused its discretion, so that the determination “is against logic and the facts on the record.” (citations omitted), or when it has failed to make sufficient findings showing it considered all the appropriate factors in making its decision.
Marriage of Darcy v. Darcy 455 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Darcy v. Darcy 455 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ANALYSIS The supreme court has stated, 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 the record.” ().
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 452 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 452 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 449 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 449 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1989
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS The trial court has broad discretion with regard to child support 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.”
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ganyo v. Engen 446 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ganyo v. Engen 446 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(conclusion that is against logic and facts on the record constitutes an abuse of discretion).
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989