Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d 219.

83 citing documents.

Kidane Sante Shulbe v. Ashley Rose Henke Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Kidane Sante Shulbe v. Ashley Rose Henke Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Nicholas David Wivinus, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard Minder III, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating “[i]n determining the child’s best interests, the [district] court weighs statutory criteria in light of findings on underlying facts, and the court’s conclusions will reflect decisions on mixed questions of law and fact, ‘ul timate’ facts, and matters of law”) (citing Maxfield v. Maxfield , ), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Gena Maria Kramp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1; (“Split custody is not favored.
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
(Yetka, J., dissenting) (explaining that custody decisions are not suited to “inflexible presumptions about who is best able to care for a young child”).
, A18-1041 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Tanghe, d at 625 (noting that “‘much must be left to the discretion of the trial court’ in applying a b est-interests analysis”) (quoting Maxfield v. Maxfield , ).
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Maxfield v. Maxfield, the supreme court concluded that a ten-year-old child was “old enough and mature enough to express a preference where and with whom he wishe[d] to live.” 223 (Minn. 1990).
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Maxfield v. Maxfield, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that a ten-year-old child of the divorcing parties was “old enough and mature enough to express a preference where and with whom he wishes to live during his approaching teen-age years.” 223 (Minn. 1990) (analyzing the best interests of the child pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd.
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.
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
All relevant factors must be weighed in the balance.” n.2 (Minn. 1990).
In re the Welfare of J.R.B. 805 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of J.R.B. 805 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
We need not give deference to a district court’s legal conclusions and “may correct erroneous applications of the law.”
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-23 (Minn.1990), the supreme court acknowledged that the legislature amended the custody statute to forbid courts from making custody placements by considering one statutory best-interests factor to the exclusion of the others.
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Tanghe 672 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Tanghe 672 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Similarly, in reviewing a best interests analysis in a custody determination the court reasoned that “much must be left to the discretion of the trial court” in applying a best-interests analysis because “[s]ome statutory criteria will weigh more in one case and less in another.”
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC 668 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC 668 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Estate of Riggle 654 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Estate of Riggle 654 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Manor v. Gales 649 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Manor v. Gales 649 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Settlement Capital Corp. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 646 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Settlement Capital Corp. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 646 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Thus, we are essentially reviewing the district court’s “weighing statutory criteria in light of the found basic facts.”
In RE MARRIAGE OF BRODSKY v. Brodsky 639 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In RE MARRIAGE OF BRODSKY v. Brodsky 639 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Baumann v. Chaska Building Center, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Where a district court applies a statute in light of its factual findings, the district court’s “conclusion of law will include a determination of mixed questions of law and fact, determination of ‘ultimate’ facts, and legal conclusions.”
Belton-Kocher v. St. Paul School District 610 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Belton-Kocher v. St. Paul School District 610 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Conservatorship of Brady 607 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2000
In Re the Conservatorship of Brady 607 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-23 (Minn.1990) ( and quoting Minn.Stat.
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 602 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 602 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Guyer v. Guyer 587 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1999