Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson, 393 N.W.2d 405.

27 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(holding a reduction in parenting time was not a restriction), -86 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding a reduction of parenting time did constitute a restriction), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
on by one-half was substantial); -86 (Minn. App. 1984) (concluding that reduction from 14 weeks to five and one-half weeks (i.e., 61 percent) was restriction), rev. 9 denied (Minn. June 12, 1984), with Suleski, d at 337 (concluding that reduction from 273 overnights to 245 overnights (i.e., 10 percent) was not substantial); -08 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding that reduction from every other weekend to six weeks per year (i.e., 52 to 42 overnights, or 19 percent) was not substantial).
In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Suleski, d at 337 (concluding that reduction of approximately seven percent was not restriction); -08 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding that reduction from every other weekend to six weeks per year (i.e., 52 overnights to 42 overnights, or 19%) was not restriction); -86 (Minn. App. 1984), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984) (concluding that reduction from 14 weeks to five and o
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
see also Hagen, d at 219 (noting “that reasonable modifications in parenting time caused by a good-faith removal to another state are not usually ‘restrictions’”).
In re the Matter of: Robert Burdette, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1(a) (2016); d 405, 407 (Minn. App. 1986) (“The purpose of visitation is to maintain the parent-child relationship.”).
In re the Marriage of: Joanna Brooks Benson, f/k/a Joanna Lee Brooks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See id.; (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by evenly allocating new parenting-time travel expenses after mother relocated to Montana).
In re the Marriage of: Christine Lynn Sypnieski, f/k/a Christine Lynn Holtz v. Kevin Douglas Holtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine Lynn Sypnieski, f/k/a Christine Lynn Holtz v. Kevin Douglas Holtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe 855 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe 855 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Compare Matson, d at 468 (holding that a 50% reduction in parenting time was substantial even when that reduction was the result of an in-state move of one of the parties), –08 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that upon an out-of-state move of the custodial parent, the modification of parenting time of the non-custodial parent to extended summer parenting time, with other opportunities for parenting time during the school year, was not a restriction of the non- custodial parent’s paren
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Marriage of Dahl v. Dahl 765 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Dahl v. Dahl 765 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
see also Olson, d at 549 n. 3 (concluding that section 257.022 was “intended to protect children from losing contact with their grandparents”).
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
A modification of visitation that “results in a reduction of total visitation time, is not necessarily a ‘restriction’ of visitation.”
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
(alteration of visitation accompanying change of custodial parent’s residence is not a “restriction” of visitation under Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 410 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 410 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
*91 App.1987); 407 (Minn.Ct.App.1986).