Cited by

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

390 citing documents.

Minneapolis Police Department v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 402 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Region VIII North Welfare Ex Rel. Evans v. Evans 402 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Region VIII North Welfare Ex Rel. Evans v. Evans 402 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hebeisen v. Hebeisen 401 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hebeisen v. Hebeisen 401 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
because they do not include non-cash contributions of insurance and do not accurately state the respective needs and resources of the parties.
Marriage of Martin v. Martin 401 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 401 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 401 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Charles Nelson’s motions were denied, and he appealed; the trial court confirmed the referee’s conclusions
Marriage of Martin v. Martin 401 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Beede v. Law 400 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Beede v. Law 400 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Even if a modification were justified, the amount of modification cannot be upheld because the “record fails to reveal that the trial court actually considered the appropriate factors * * * [that are] expressly mandated by the legislature.”
Marriage of Lujan v. Lujan 400 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Coakley v. Coakley 400 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lujan v. Lujan 400 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Coakley v. Coakley 400 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Custody of N.M.O. 399 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Custody of N.M.O. 399 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(findings are necessary to demonstrate court considered statutory factors); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 81-82 , -72 (1976) (findings assure parties this important decision was fairly and carefully considered); Wallin, 290 Minn. at 267 , d at 631 (findings made in
Marriage of Olson v. Olson 399 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Olson v. Olson 399 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tuthill v. Tuthill 399 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Musielewicz v. Musielewicz 400 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Finck v. Finck 399 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Ramsey v. Faulhaber 399 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tuthill v. Tuthill 399 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Finck v. Finck 399 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Ramsey v. Faulhaber 399 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Fifteen days later, determining that in modifying support in cases not involving public assistance, the court must make specific findings on all statutory factors involved in setting child support.
Marriage of Tibbetts v. Tibbetts 398 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State Ex Rel. Meneley v. Meneley 398 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tibbetts v. Tibbetts 398 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State Ex Rel. Meneley v. Meneley 398 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Moylan, , the supreme court set out a two-step analysis for application of section 518.64, subd.
Marriage of Kujawa v. Kujawa 397 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, County of Swift ex rel. Streed v. Koosmann 397 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Voluntary Dissolution of Quintar, Inc. v. MBC, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, County of Swift ex rel. Streed v. Koosmann 397 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Voluntary Dissolution of Quintar, Inc. v. MBC, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (court of appeals remanded due to lack of findings supporting denial of temporary injunction).
Marriage of Kujawa v. Kujawa 397 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 396 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 396 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The referee’s order complies with the supreme court’s and the statutory factors in Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Thuftin v. Bush 396 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sundell v. Sundell 396 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rieck v. Lambert 396 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Shank v. Shank 396 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rieck v. Lambert 396 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court’s decision was almost simultaneous with the supreme court’s
Marriage of Sundell v. Sundell 396 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
2 (Supp.1985), were the best that could be done considering the obfuscation by appellant.
Marriage of Shank v. Shank 396 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thuftin v. Bush 396 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Since the record conclusively establishes no change in circumstances, (specific findings of fact required as to the factors considered by the trial court in formulating award).
Marriage of Clark v. Bullard 396 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Clark v. Bullard 396 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[I]n 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.”