Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers, 622 N.W.2d 813.

23 citing documents.

In re the Custody of A.W.W: Nicholas Taylor Wehrwein v. Patricia Katrine Hascall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Custody of A.W.W: Nicholas Taylor Wehrwein v. Patricia Katrine Hascall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Ann Jahraus Pesola v. Caleb Samuel Pesola Minn. Ct. App. 2024
aff’d in part and rev’d in part, to argue that a district court does not have the authority to modify prior orders on its own initiative.
In re the Marriage of: Bryan Larry Lovas v. Stacy Ann Lovas, n/k/a Stacy Ann Gades Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(allowing the district court to sua sponte modify a child support obligation to correct a clerical error); Hamann v. Hamann , (“Trial court findings are required when the court addresses modification issues.”).
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Corinne MacNabb v. John Michael Kysylyczyn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Tabatha Annette Cusick n/k/a Tabatha Annette Biegler v. Mark Anthony Cusick Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Custody of: B. L. F. Cherries Chamberlain v. Neil Fleahman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
aff’d in part and rev’d in part
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem 891 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem 891 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“The code does not preclude state district courts from allocating tax dependency exemptions to a noncustodial parent incident to the determination of child support and physical custody.”); 296–98 (Minn. App. 1998) (awarding dependency exemption to
In re the Estate of: Michael Peter Hanowski, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Michael Peter Hanowski, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting the “general[]” presumption that a sole physical custodian “will spend the appropriate amount on the children”).
Edward E. Greco v. Leslie J. Albrecht-Greco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Edward E. Greco v. Leslie J. Albrecht-Greco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court’s modification of child support will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, -21 (Minn.2001) (announcing that the children’s time spent with the noncustodial parent is not determinative of the support obligation).
Marriage of Schlichting v. Paulus 632 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Schlichting v. Paulus 632 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001