Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bjergum v. Bjergum, 392 N.W.2d 604.

38 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Kayla Lynn Rhodes & OBO Minor Child v. Chase Gordy Lee Olmsted Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of: Marineisy Jimenez Rosario v. Robert Eliazar Villanueva Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(Minn. App. 1986, to support his argument.
In re the Matter of: Koumealo Amana v. Braima Diarra Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Diarra relies primarily on Bjergum v. Bjergum
In the Matter of: Alysia Sue Eschenbacher and On Behalf of Minor Child v. Justin Taylor Eschenbacher Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Arctos Wealth Management and Fiduciary LLC, o/b/o Irvin John Cooper, Sr. v. Kathy Jeno, aka Kathy Brown, aka … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
7 -07 (Minn. App. 1986).
In the Matter of: Chelsey Lynn Ness, and On Behalf of the Minor Children v. Hope Michelle Wolfe Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Sara Ann Zahasky v. Thomas Warren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child, Minn. 2018
9, 2017) (citing Bjergum v. Bjergum , ) .
In the Matter of: Marissa Jean Newton-Denila, on behalf of minor children v. Ejiro Elqanah Newton-Denila Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-06 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that evidence of domestic abuse that occurred about two years earlier is too remote to support the grant of an OFP).
In the Matter of: Krystal Marie Ketchmark v. Aaron Bruce Fruen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Amanda Jean Vail v. Ryan Joseph Vail Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the child, leaving the child unattended, active chemical dependency while caring for the child, and an ‘overall pattern of behavior endangering the physical well being of the child,’” where “there [wa]s no evidence of actual physical harm, bodily injury, or assault” resulting from mother’s actions and no eviden ce that mother had “intent to do present harm” to the child); Bjergum v. Bjergum , –06 (Minn. App. 1986) (agreeing that domestic abuse that occurred about 19 months prio r to petition was
In the Matter of: Lisa Marie Hessel, individually and o/b/o minor children v. Michael John Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child v. John Patrick Schrimsher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child v. John Patrick Schrimsher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reversing order for protection when record contained no evidence of present harm or present intention to inflict fear of imminent harm).
In the Matter of: Stanislav Kopylov v. Tatiana Kopylov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Stanislav Kopylov v. Tatiana Kopylov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 337; (requiring reversal of OFP when there is no showing of respondent’s “present intention to do harm or inflict fear of harm” (emphasis added)).
In re the Matter of: Cindy Jean Oberg obo minor child v. Gregory Brian Bradley 868 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Cindy Jean Oberg obo minor child v. Gregory Brian Bradley 868 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, -07 (Minn. App. 1986) (reversing an OFP because “[e]vidence presented at the domestic abuse hearing was insufficient to warrant issuance of a[n OFP] under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Cherelle Lee Schroeder v. Bladen Frederick Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Cherelle Lee Schroeder v. Bladen Frederick Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 795 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons 795 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Appellant cites Bjergum v. Bjergum for the proposition that “[w]here the record fails to establish appellant’s present intention to harm or inflict fear of harm, we have no alternative but to reverse the protection order.” (quotation omitted).
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Kush v. Mathison 683 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Kush v. Mathison 683 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Andrasko v. Andrasko 443 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Andrasko v. Andrasko 443 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hall v. Hall 408 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hall v. Hall 408 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Robert Hall maintains that present threats do not con *629 stitute domestic abuse because they are not “overt” acts, -06 (Minn.Ct.App.1986).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by