Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rogge v. Rogge, 509 N.W.2d 163.

20 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Angie Lynn Magnuson Swierzewski v. David Matthew Swierzewski Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Allison Baron Bonnett v. Theodore James Bonnett Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When the district court’s order is contrary to the professional’s recommendation, appellate courts have required that the district court “either (a) express its reasons for rejecting the custody recommendation, or (b) provide detailed findings that examine the same factors the custody study raised.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Fahria Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Fahria Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court is free to make a different custody decision than what is recommended by a neutral custody evaluator but, in that event, is required to “either (a) express its reasons for rejecting the custody recommendation, or (b) provide detailed findings that examine the same factors the custody study raised.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Amy Joy Kemp v. Michael Edward Kemp Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Even if the district court’s residence decision and the custody evaluator’s recommendations conflicted, a district court may reject such recommendations if it “provide[s] detailed findings that examine the same factors the custody study raised.” See 9 rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of: Joseph Daryll Rued on behalf of minor child v. Catrina Marie Rued, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Stacy Ann Rakow, f/k/a Przybilla v. Ryan Frank Przybilla Minn. Ct. App. 2021
App. 1986) (remanding because this court was “unable to determine whether the court cons idered the factors lis ted in Minn. Stat. § 518.17”); see also, e.g. , Rogge v. Rogge , -66 (Minn. App. 1993) (remanding because, while the district court made “findings that appear to address” several of the best interests factors, “it is unclear whether the tria l court considered all of the relevant ‘best interests’ factors”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Nieber v. Rebekah Kali Nieber, n/k/a Beka Kali Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. D.-P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In Re the Marriage of: NaCole LaVae Ferden v. Kristopher Kollen Ferden, County of Clay, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The district court acknowledged that the GAL had recommended denying respondent’s motion, but noted that “the court’s own legal analysis simply result [ed] in a different conclusion than that arrived at by the [GAL].” d 163, 166 (Minn. App. 1993) (a district court has discretion to contradict a GAL’s recommendation if its own analysis of the best -interest factors results in a different outcome), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, d 163, 165 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 81-82, Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 266-67, -66 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Matter of: Heather Ray Klammer v. Luke Stephen Klammer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Heather Ray Klammer v. Luke Stephen Klammer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.2 (Minn. App. 1993) (“Several of the trial court’s ‘findings’ consist simply of recitation of the testimony and are not true findings.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gary George Spicer 853 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gary George Spicer 853 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, review denied (Minn. Jan.
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
1(a) (2004); review denied (Minn. Jan.