Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Witchell v. Witchell, 606 N.W.2d 730.

51 citing documents.

Lisa Marie Parkos, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Corey Gregory Crowe and OBO Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 844; (stating that an ex -husband’s criticism of his ex-wife’s parenting decisions was not harassment).
Susan Patricia Evans, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(concluding that, when reading statements in context, an “inappropriate and argumentative” statement may not be “intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy” of another).
Corey Lamont Holiday for Self and OBO Vulnerable Adult, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(determining that district court clearly erred in finding that husband’s comments in a visitation notebook, used to communicate about shared children, were “intrusive or that they were intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of wife”).
Todd Brian Kerber, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 21 (Minn. App. 1995) (requiring written or oral findings for an order for protection); - 32 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Mechtel in an HRO appeal); Minn. R. Civ.
Heidi Lee Wolf, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kallys Albert Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sarah Anne Trisko, and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Heather Mary Zigan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-1369 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Emily Mae Peterson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-0958 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peter Richard Rickmyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 843; -32 (Minn. App. 2000).
A19-0468 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jenna Marie Bjerke, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kush, d at 843; -32 (Minn. App. 2000).
Emily Peterson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jason McKenzie, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rebecca Anderson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Carly Jaye Nelson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
According to him, his treatment of Nelson was “merely inappropriate and argumentative” and thus “insufficient to rise to the level of harassment.” d 502, 503 (Minn. App. 2002) () (dicta).
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that the district court abused its discretion by grant i n g a n H R O w h e r e t h e appellant’s conduct was not intrusive and did not adversely affect the respondent).
Tracy Leigh Thompson o/b/o D. X. T., petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
James Michael Olsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
29, 2004); a de novo standard of review to a district court’s conclusions of law, and an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s decision to issue an HRO based on a finding that a person has engaged in harassment , Witchell v. Witchell , -32 (Minn. App. 2000).
Neegonee Brunner, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sarah Yule, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that an ex-husband’s criticis m of his ex-wife’s parenting decisions and stating he wanted joint legal and physical custody of the children was not harassment).
Mackenzie Hanson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(examining comments written by husband “in context” in concluding statements were not harassment).
Nathan Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nathan Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joyce Sammon v. Kim Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joyce Sammon v. Kim Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, d 730, 732 (Minn. App. 2000) (reading “in context” a father’s allegedly harassing statements toward a mother in a visitation notebook, concluding that the statements did not constitute harassing conduct).
Cathie J. Pascavage v. Donald Mackay Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cathie J. Pascavage v. Donald Mackay Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tyler VanCamp v. Tracey VanCamp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tyler VanCamp v. Tracey VanCamp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 844 (“In addition to its findings regarding the two specific incidents, the district court 3 found that appellant’s other harassing conduct gave context to an ongoing situation.”); (reading “in context” father’s allegedly harassing statements toward mother in a visitation notebook).
Peter Wells Fischer v. Gene A. Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Peter Wells Fischer v. Gene A. Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kush, d at 843 ; -32 (Minn.App.2000).
Kush v. Mathison 683 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Kush v. Mathison 683 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Roer v. Dunham 682 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Roer v. Dunham 682 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Roer argues that the court has the authority to extend a restraining order based on a continuing pattern of harassment by the person subject to the order.
Beach v. Jeschke 649 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2002