Cited by

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

390 citing documents.

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 Rogers v. Rogers 622 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers 622 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
-63 (Minn.1986) (recognizing that Act of June 9, 1983, ch. 308, § 17, 1983 Minn. Laws 1748 , 1757-59, and its subsequent revision by Act of April 25, 1984, ch. 547, § 16, 1984 Minn. Laws 933 , 938, required application of the child support guidelines in all cases, not just those involving public assistance).
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citing Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148 , ).
Marriage of Gully v. Gully 599 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Gully v. Gully 599 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1999
Bunge v. Zachman 578 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bunge v. Zachman 578 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Rouland v. Thorson 542 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rouland v. Thorson 542 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
He claims that a lack of findings on the needs of the children requires a
In Re Custody of ASR 539 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ruppert v. Schmidt 539 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ruppert v. Schmidt 539 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re Custody of ASR 539 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The court should consider the fact that the parties fixed their obligations in the dissolution decree by stipulation, while keeping in mind that “the welfare of the child takes precedence even if the case involves a stipulation.” (citing Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148
Marriage of Allan v. Allan 509 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Allan v. Allan 509 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The decision to modify a child support order lies in the district court’s broad discretion and will be reversed only for a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” ().
Rogge v. Rogge 509 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rogge v. Rogge 509 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Our supreme court prohibited this court’s independent review of the record in most instances, holding that such action is improper where “it is unclear whether the trial court considered factors expressly mandated by the legislature.”
Marriage of Nazar v. Nazar 505 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Nazar v. Nazar 505 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
County of Nicollet v. Haakenson 497 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
County of Nicollet v. Haakenson 497 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-64 (Minn.1986), each of the relevant factors under Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Bartl v. Bartl 497 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Bartl v. Bartl 497 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
ANALYSIS I. 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 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
However, a requirements are met.
Marriage of Ballard v. Wold 486 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Ballard v. Wold 486 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(findings necessary to support a judgment and to aid appellate court by providing clear understanding of basis and grounds for decision).
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
(citing Petersen v. Peterson, 296 Minn. 147, 148 , ).
Kronick v. Kronick 482 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kronick v. Kronick 482 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(findings necessary to provide clear understanding of basis and grounds for trial court’s decision).
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 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.” ().
In re the Marriage of Hamann v. Hamann 479 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In re the Marriage of Hamann v. Hamann 479 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gilbertson v. Graff 477 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Gilbertson v. Graff 477 N.W.2d 771 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 Schneider v. Schneider 473 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Schneider v. Schneider 473 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
ANALYSIS 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 abusé of that discretion only where it finds a ‘clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on the record.’ ” (citation omitted).
Marriage of Phillips v. Phillips 472 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Phillips v. Phillips 472 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
ANALYSIS Standard of Review 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.” (citation omitted).
Hennepin County v. Hanneman 472 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1991

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by