Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859.

390 citing documents.

James David Colburn, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although the record includes information about the parties’ financial resources, the record “is nevertheless inadequate if that record fails to reveal that the [district] court actually considered the appropriate factors.” -18 (Minn. App. 2010) (noting that appellate courts have instructed district courts to “identify both [their] decision (e.g., spousal maintenance, child support, parenting time) as well as the underlying reason(s) for that decision (i.e., findings showi
Alpha News, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that, although “there are occasions where an appellate court can find support for a trial court’s decision by an independent review of the record, such action is improper where .
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Lynn Wilson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re: Conservatorship of June Delores Lacey, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard Minder III, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Moylan v. Moylan , (stating, in child-support context, that “[w]hile the record may support a trial court’s decision, it is nevertheless inadequate if that record fails to reveal that the trial court actually considered the appropriate factors”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Here, however, the district court provided insufficient findings and legal analysis to permit effective appellate revie w. Moylan v. Moylan , (stating that even where the record might support a district court’s decision, “it is nevertheless inadequate if that record fails to reveal that the trial court actually considered the appropriate factors”).
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
" *649 State v. Williams , , 313 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Moylan v. Moylan , , 864 (Minn. 1986) ).
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-10 (Minn. 4 1997) (maintenance); Moylan v. Moylan , (support).
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Findings of fact are “needed to permit meaningful appellate review on the question whether attorney fees are appropriate because of a party’s conduct.” ().
In re the Marriage of: Brian Matthew Hood v. Katherine June Downing Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Brian Matthew Hood v. Katherine June Downing Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ing its conclusion, the district court noted that “the children’s interests are implicated by the amount of child support that is paid to provide for them.” When a stipulation includes child support, it is afforded less weight because child support requirements relate “to the non-bargainable interest of children” and therefore are “less subject to restraint by stipulation.”
In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth 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.’ ” ().
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating, in child-support context, that “[w]hile the record may support a trial court’s decision, it is nevertheless inadequate if that record fails to reveal that the trial court actually considered the appropriate factors”).
Marriage of Hesse v. Hesse 778 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hesse v. Hesse 778 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hunley v. Hunley 757 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Hunley v. Hunley 757 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In family law decisions, the judiciary is controlled by “the welfare of the child.” Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , (noting that child’s welfare takes precedence even if parents stipulate to child support).
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
We have said that “[w]e will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the district court abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” ( ).
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
• A district court’s denial of a motion to stay discovery will not be reversed unless the court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” Montgomery Ward & Co., (holding that *763 a reversal based on abuse of discretion requires “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record”).
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
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
1 See, -59 (Minn.1999) (custody modification); (child support); (presumption that physical custodian may remove a child from Minnesota), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Strandberg v. Strandberg 664 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Strandberg v. Strandberg 664 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Bormann v. Bormann 644 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Bormann v. Bormann 644 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Svenningsen v. Svenningsen 641 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Svenningsen v. Svenningsen 641 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001