Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Lilleboe v. Lilleboe, 453 N.W.2d 721.

33 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Abdihafid Hariri Hassan Yusuf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
3 for the proposition that “tax exemptions ” are a “ component of the child support scheme intended to benefit the child.” But Lilleboe does not discuss tax exemption status or the broader equitable powers of the court.
In Re the Custody of J. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To prove endangerment in the custody-modification context, a party must show “a significant degree of danger, which includes danger purely to emotional and psychological development.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); (explaining that endangerment can include physical or emotional abuse).
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A24-0752 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A finding of present endangerment must be based on the particular facts of each case.” Lilleboe v. Lilleboe , (affirming 9 district court’s endangerment finding and custody modification because “findings document a history of physical abuse, [ the child’s] poor school performance, behavioral problems, and lack of personal hygiene”), rev.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
26, 2000), and is analyzed “based on the particular facts of each case,”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: N. S. and C. H., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, e.g., Nice-Petersen, d at 472 (“[T]he significant change in circumstances must endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or the child’s development.”); (stating that a district court may deny modification if the parties’ affidavits “do not satisfactorily establish, on a preliminary basis, that there has occurred a significant change in circumstances which endangers the child’s physical or emotional health or emotional development”); Roe
In re the Marriage of: Catrina M. Rued, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-64 (Minn. App. 2000) (“The existence of endangerment must be determined on the particular facts of each case.” ( ), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 “What constitutes changed circumstances for custody-modification purposes is ‘determined on a case-by-case basis.’” Sharp v. Bilbro , (quoting Lilleboe v. Lilleboe , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 Change in Circumstances “What constitutes changed circum stances for custody-modificati on purposes is ‘determined on a case-by-case basis.’” (quoting Lilleboe v. Lilleboe , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
C. Endangerment “A finding of present endangerment must be based on the particular facts of each case.” Lilleboe v. Lilleboe
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
and consistent denial of visitation.”
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Anh Phuong Le v. Holter 838 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that courts should pay “special attention to cases where allegations are made of present endangerment to a child’s health or emotional well-being.
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
nial of hearing when mother’s history of throwing children out of house created stress and anxiety in anticipation of being thrown out again in the future); (reversing denial of hearing where allegations of emotional abuse by stepfather who was “yelling, throwing things, hitting walls, and driving the car like a maniac”); (reversing denial of hearing where facts alleged might have established endangerment of child’s emotional health or development).
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-23 (Minn.App.1990) (reversing when trial court denied evidentiary hearing because of lack of independent substantiation).
Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
What constitutes changed circumstances for custody-modification purposes is “determined on a case-by-case basis.” (citations omitted).
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-24 (Minn.App.1990) (reversing where district court dismissed on ground that moving party’s abuse allegations were not corroborated).
Marriage of Courey v. Courey 524 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Marriage of Courey v. Courey 524 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(evidentia-ry hearing required on motion to modify custody, where moving party has made prima facie showing of change in circumstances which endangers child’s physical or emotional well-being).
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 508 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 508 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Ross v. Ross 477 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Ross v. Ross 477 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(allegations of emotional abuse of children by custodial parent’s spouse warranted hearing); (hearing required to investigate allegations of abuse, fear of the custodial parent and changes in the children’s attitude and behavior); (denial of evidentiary hearing upheld where affidavits did not allege evidence of abuse or probl
Marriage of Harkema v. Harkema 474 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Harkema v. Harkema 474 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1991

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by