DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of McClelland v. McClelland, 359 N.W.2d 7.

76 citing documents.

  • Sarah Nicole Belich and on Behalf of Minor Child(ren), petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    the supreme court concluded that the district court judge did not demonstrate bias despite allegations that she “inappropriately interjected herself into the questioning of one of the witnesses, interrupted the testimony of appellant’s expert, prematurely stopped further inquiry into the wife’s ma
  • In Re the Custody of J. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Minnesota caselaw has established a high bar for showing bias
  • In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    4 Father relies on State v. Dorsey , to argue that “a judge must not appear biased by resolving all disputes in favor of one party without addressing conflicting evidence.” The portion of Dorsey to which Father cites does not support this argument.
  • Louis Reis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    10 fairly over the proceedings should not be required to step down upon allegations of a party which themselves may be unfair or which simply indicate dissatisfaction with the possible outcome of the litigation.”
  • In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Nieber, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    It is essential that a district court judge deciding family court matters is neutral in deed and in appearance, and judges “should take measures to assure that litigants have no cause to think their case is not being fairly judged.” (quotation omitted).
  • A20-0508 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    These facts would not “cause a reasonable examiner to question the judge’s impartiality.” Burrell, d at 601; (“[A] judge who feels able to preside fairly over the proceedings should not be required to step down upon allegations of a party which themselves may be unfair or which simply indicate dissatisfaction w ith the possible outcome of the litigation.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, Minn. S
  • In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See Abuzzahab v. Abuzzahab , d 7 329, 332 (Minn. App. 1984) (explaining that “changes directly resulting from the property division are not the type of changes” that allow a modification of spousal maintenance because the district court contemplated them when it divided the property).
  • State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
    And judges “should be sensitive to the ‘appearance of impropriety’ and should take measures to assure that litigants have no cause to think their case is not being fairly judged.”
  • State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
    Judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but “a judge who feels able to preside fairly over the proceedings should not be required to step down upon allegations of a party which themselves may be unfair or which simply indicate dissatisfaction with the possible outcome of the litigation.”
  • State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
  • 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
    See, (stating permanent maintenance awards “are to be restricted” to “exceptional cases” involving a dependent spouse with little likelihood of becoming self-sufficient).
  • Marriage of Gales v. Gales 553 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1996
  • Marriage of Gales v. Gales 553 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Laughlin 508 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Laughlin 508 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Judges have been cautioned to be sensitive to the appearance of partiality and to voluntarily recuse if necessary “to assure that litigants have no cause to think their case is not being fairly judged.” -75 (Minn.App.1984) (the charge that a judge is biased must always be considered carefully).
  • Uselman v. Uselman 464 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1990
  • Uselman v. Uselman 464 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1990
    “[A] judge who feels able to preside fairly over the proceedings should not be required to step down upon allegations of a party which themselves may be unfair or which simply indicate dissatisfaction with the possible outcome of the litigation.”
  • In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 414 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 414 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (permanent maintenance applicable to older, dependent spouse in lengthy “traditional” marriage where there is little likelihood dependent spouse will become self-sufficient).
  • Marriage of Halvorson v. Halvorson 402 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Halvorson v. Halvorson 402 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Appellant claims that an award of permanent maintenance is usually restricted to certain exceptional cases where there is little likelihood of the once-dependent spouse attaining self-sufficiency, appeal after remand
  • McClelland v. McClelland 393 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • McClelland v. McClelland 393 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Olson v. Olson 392 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Olson v. Olson 392 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    held there were no grounds for a mistrial based on bias where it was claimed the trial judge inappropriately interjected herself into the questioning of one of the witnesses, interrupted the testimony of appellant’s expert, prematurely stopped further inquiry into the wife’s marital and nonmarital ass
  • Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 385 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 385 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • 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
    should have been addressed by the trial court.
  • Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 388 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 388 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (the trial court should establish a schedule to reduce child support as each child becomes emancipated).
  • 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
    (wife’s income producing property in income should be included for purpose of determining spousal maintenance); (bonus should be included in husband’s income for purpose of determining spousal maintenance).
  • Marriage of Hattstrom v. Hattstrom 385 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Hattstrom v. Hattstrom 385 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    court also recognized that respondent had received a substantial cash property settlement in addition to the homestead “which should aid [her] in attaining self-sufficiency.” In addition, the trial court retained jurisdiction here on the permanent maintenance issue following the supreme court’s
  • Marriage of Catania v. Catania 385 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986