Cited by

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

390 citing documents.

Hennepin County v. Hanneman 472 N.W.2d 149 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 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
Marriage of Lee v. Lee 459 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Polk County Social Services ex rel. Hagen v. Clinton 459 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Polk County Social Services ex rel. Hagen v. Clinton 459 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Lee v. Lee 459 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(“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).
Finch v. Marusich 457 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finch v. Marusich 457 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Welfare of H.K. 455 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
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.” ().
Klecker v. Klecker 454 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Klecker v. Klecker 454 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(“Effective appellate review of the exercise of [the trial court’s] discretion is possible only when the trial court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration [of all relevant factors]”); (“While 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”).
In Re Conservatorship of Lundgaard 453 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Conservatorship of Lundgaard 453 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Welfare of M.M. 452 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1990
In Re the Welfare of M.M. 452 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1990
Anderson v. Anderson 450 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Anderson v. Anderson 450 N.W.2d 384 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
Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden 448 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden 448 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 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
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Miller 446 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Welsh v. Welsh 446 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Welsh v. Welsh 446 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Miller 446 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
We remand for entry of a child support order which reflects adequate consideration of the section 518.-551
Marriage of Biscoe v. Biscoe 443 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Biscoe v. Biscoe 443 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
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
this court must review the findings of fact to determine if they support the trial court’s award.
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 435 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 435 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Modifying a child support award lies in the broad and sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will reverse for an abuse of that discretion only when it finds a “clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” (citations omitted).
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
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 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 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
In Re the Welfare of C.K. 426 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1988