Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Ross v. Ross, 477 N.W.2d 753.

68 citing documents.

  • Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    -57 (Minn.App.1991), in support of his argument that Minn.Stat.
  • Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    -57 (Minn.App.1991), in support of his argument that Minn.Stat.
  • Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    While “[t]he concept of ‘endangerment’ is unusually imprecise!,] * * * in the context of child custody, the legislature likely intended to demand a showing of a significant degree of danger.”
  • Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    -57 (Minn.App.1991) (citing cases involving children as young as 12 years old).
  • Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • In Re the Welfare of M.P. 542 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • In Re the Welfare of M.P. 542 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    634, 635 (1910) (“[W]hen the minor has reached an age sufficient to have an intelligent and well-defined preference, * * * it is apparent that his inclination must be taken into consideration, if regard is to be had for his best interests.”); -57 (Minn.App.1991) (when custody of a child is placed with a non-parent, the choice of an “older child” is of “predominant importance”).
  • In Re the Welfare of S.F. 482 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • In Re the Welfare of S.F. 482 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1992