Cited by

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

390 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of C.K. 426 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1988
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
Marriage of Moylan v. Moylan 423 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Moylan v. Moylan 423 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(mandate for trial court findings on child support factors).
County of Nicollet v. Larson 421 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1988
County of Nicollet v. Larson 421 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1988
the guidelines apply “in all child support cases.” Id.
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 421 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mueller v. Mueller 419 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mueller v. Mueller 419 N.W.2d 845 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
In “all child support cases not involving public assistance, the trial court must make specific findings of fact as to the factors it considered in formulating the award.”
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-64 (Minn.1986) (trial court must make findings on all relevant statutory factors).
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 415 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 415 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Nicollet v. Larson 413 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Nicollet v. Larson 413 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hodges v. Hodges 415 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Pavlasek v. Pavlasek 415 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Pavlasek v. Pavlasek 415 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rosalie argues the trial court’s
Marriage of Hodges v. Hodges 415 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-4 (Minn.1986), and subsequent cases, findings are necessary to enable meaningful appellate review.
Marriage of Kuchenmeister v. Kuchenmeister 414 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kuchenmeister v. Kuchenmeister 414 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Fuller v. Glover 414 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Splinter v. Landsteiner 414 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Splinter v. Landsteiner 414 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Fuller v. Glover 414 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ANALYSIS I. The proper standard for an appellate court to employ when reviewing the trial court’s disposition regarding a motion to modify a
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 Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Finally, the trial court must make specific findings as to the factors considered in formulating the award under Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Huston v. Huston 412 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Vaughan v. Putrah 412 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Huston v. Huston 412 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Vaughan v. Putrah 412 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hedburg v. Hedburg 412 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hedburg v. Hedburg 412 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court must make “specific findings as to the factors it considered.”
Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 410 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Alex v. Alex 410 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 410 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court explained that the court’s discretion in modifying support is limited by Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Alex v. Alex 410 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Koury v. Koury 410 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ensco International, Inc. v. Blegen 410 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987