Cited by

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

510 citing documents.

Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The decision to modify a child support order lies in the trial court’s broad discretion, and will be reversed only for a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” (
Marriage of Warwick v. Warwick 438 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Warwick v. Warwick 438 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
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 Dean v. Pelton 437 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Dean v. Pelton 437 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Prange v. Prange 437 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Zamora v. Zamora 435 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Zamora v. Zamora 435 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of McCulloch v. McCulloch 435 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of McCulloch v. McCulloch 435 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Daily v. Daily 433 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Daily v. Daily 433 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Trial courts have broad discretion in modifying child support and should be reversed only for a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 432 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 432 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Bruner v. Bruner 429 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Bruner v. Bruner 429 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of D'Heilly v. Gunderson 428 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of D'Heilly v. Gunderson 428 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Cich v. Cich 428 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Cich v. Cich 428 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Before finding an abuse of discretion this court must conclude there was a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The trial court is accorded broad discretion with respect to spousal maintenance and 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 Rohrman v. Moore 423 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Rohrman v. Moore 423 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The decision will not be reversed unless it is a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hall 418 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hall 418 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in setting child support, and an appellate 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 Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Bear v. Bear 415 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Bear v. Bear 415 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hodges v. Hodges 415 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hodges v. Hodges 415 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The decision to modify [an] * * * 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.”
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Child support determinations will be upheld on appeal “unless they are clearly erroneous.” Minn.R.Civ.P.
Marriage of Long v. Long 413 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Long v. Long 413 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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 Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sward v. Sward 410 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sward v. Sward 410 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(ordering husband to pay one-half of mortgage, taxes, insurance and house maintenance not an abuse of discretion).
Marriage of Huston v. Huston 412 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Huston v. Huston 412 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Collins v. Collins 410 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Spooner v. Spooner 410 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Collins v. Collins 410 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Spooner v. Spooner 410 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Batsell v. Batsell 410 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Batsell v. Batsell 410 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
for rev. denied (Minn. May 22, 1986) ().
Erickson v. Erickson 409 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1987