Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Hegerle v. Hegerle, 355 N.W.2d 726.

26 citing documents.

In re the matter of: Eric Thurman Clinton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And this court has stated that “[j]oint physical custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time; rather, it is only necessary that physical custody of the child be the shared responsibility of the parties.” -32 (Minn. App. 1984); see Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
Ross Ronald Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Id.; 732 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming district court’s sua sponte order to amend the custody provision of original judgment and decree).
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 508 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1993
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 508 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1993
As the court of appeals has stated in the past, “[jjoint physical custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time * * -32 (Minn.App.1984), and the legislature has not enacted that requirement.
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The 1991 -32 (Minn.App.1984), that alteration of an equal share arrangement to a school year-summer division constituted only a reworking of the joint custody arrangement, not a change of custody.
Klecker v. Klecker 454 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Klecker v. Klecker 454 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(burden of proving a significant change in circumstances is on “the noncustodial parent”); Unif.
Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Lees v. Lees 404 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lees v. Lees 404 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The court allowed Linda to remove the children, reasoning that such a move merely amounted to a : Although Hegerle involved the denial of a motion to change a child's residence when the parents had joint legal and physical custody, the underlying principle would seem to be the same when such a motion has been granted.
Marriage of Lujan v. Lujan 400 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lujan v. Lujan 400 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-32 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (citation omitted).
Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes 388 N.W.2d 3 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes 388 N.W.2d 3 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
To date, only one case has been found to be outside that category, the care arrangement where "both parents are equally involved with the child’s care.”
Marriage of Otava v. Otava 374 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Otava v. Otava 374 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(court of appeals affirmed custody modification despite trial court’s failure to make findings of fact).
Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin 366 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin 366 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer 364 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer 364 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1985