Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nolte v. Mehrens, 648 N.W.2d 727.
- A24-0991 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Winesett, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-32 (Minn. App. 2002) (noting district court’s discretion in parenting-time matters).
-
In re the Marriage of:
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And while a district court’s decision to appoint a parenting-time expeditor is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Nolte v. Mehrens , -32 (M inn.
- In re the Marriage of: Linde Anne Sayen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-
Jeremiah John Palmquist, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Parties are bound by their stipulated custody arrangement s. See Nolte v. 8 Mehrens, (“[T]he label the parties place on their stipulated custodial arrangement is binding.”).
- Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
Christensen v. Healey
899 N.W.2d 573
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-57 (Minn. 1999) (following parties’ stipulation and rejecting argument based on amount of time spent with child), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, at 984-85 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (d)(i); (Minn.App.
- In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, -57 (Minn. 1999) (following the parties’ stipulation and rejecting an argument based on time spent with the child); (noting that “the label the parties place on their stipulated custodial arrangement is binding”).
- In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-
Hassinger v. Seeley
707 N.W.2d 706
Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See, (noting that “joint physical custody is not preferred” -83 (Minn.App.1993) ); (“Joint physical custody is not a prefer
- Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
Maschoff v. Leiding
696 N.W.2d 834
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(stating “when a district *840 court awards physical custody, whether based on a stipulation of the parties or not, it must also identify whether the physical-custody award is sole or joint physical custody”).
- Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Marriage of Bender v. Bender 671 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Marriage of Bender v. Bender
671 N.W.2d 602
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(noting, in a case that did not involve a parenting plan, that “when a district court awards physical custody, whether based on a stipulation of the parties or not, it must also identify whether the physical-custody award is for sole or joint physical custody”).