Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sharp v. Bilbro, 614 N.W.2d 260.

64 citing documents.

In Re the Custody of J. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-64 (Minn. App. 2000) (analyzing endangerment as a factual finding), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 284; rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of: Maria Cristina Gallo-Valdivia, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
–64 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that the record must support the finding of endangerment and that we will not reverse so long as the findings are not clearly erroneous), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-64 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
D-4 “Endangerment” implies a “significant degree of danger” to the child’s physical or emotional state, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Valentin Arkadievich Povarchuk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(contempt); -65 (Minn. App. 2000) (conduct-based fees), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-64 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Custody of H. T. J. and H. W. J., Minor Children, Tyler Raymond Johnson, Jr., … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The existence of endangerment must be determined ‘on the particular facts of each case.’” (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Custody of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Sharp v. Bilbro , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Catrina M. Rued, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-64 (Minn. App. 2000) (“The existence of endangerment must be determined on the particular facts of each case.” ( ), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Danielle Elizabeth Dressel, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“[W]e decline to endorse a position that would encourage custodial parents to interfere or to continue to interfere with visitation in an attempt to prevail in a later custody dispute.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Matter of: Sean Patrick Dempsey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Weber, d at 810; (“[W]e decline to endorse a position that would encourage custodial parents to interfere or to continue to interfere with visitation in an attempt to prevail in a later custody dispute.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Anthony Michael Bottolene, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ultimately, “the existence of endangerment must be determined on the particular facts of each case.” (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Joseph Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Endangerment is “unusually imprecise,” and the statute demands “a showing of a significant degree of danger.” Sharp v. Bilbro , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Sept.
Nicholas David Wivinus, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Sharp v. Bilbro , review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sharp v. Bilbro , review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Custody of: B. L. F., Cherries Chamberlain, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Richard Minder III, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-64 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Sept.
A19-1323 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sharp v. Bilbro , review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Gena Maria Kramp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“What constitutes changed circumstances for custody-modification purposes is determined on a case-by-case basis.” Sharp v. Bilbro , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the matter of: Michael John Hernandez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The existence of endangerment 6 must be determined on the particular facts of each case.” d 260, 263 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sharp v. Bilbro , review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 “What constitutes changed circumstances for custody-modification purposes is ‘determined on a case-by-case basis.’” Sharp v. Bilbro , (quoting Lilleboe v. Lilleboe , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 Change in Circumstances “What constitutes changed circum stances for custody-modificati on purposes is ‘determined on a case-by-case basis.’” (quoting Lilleboe v. Lilleboe , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Amarreh v. Amarreh 918 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Amarreh v. Amarreh 918 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sharp v. Bilbro , , 263 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted) (rejecting custodial parent's position because it "would encourage custodial parents to interfere or to continue to interfere with visitation in an attempt to prevail in a later custody dispute"), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-64 (Minn. App. 2000) (upholding modification where the child would be harmed if left in mother’s care), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Custody of: A. N. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sharp v. Bilbro , d 260, 263 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-63 (Minn. App. 2000) (concluding that father’s challenge to temporary custody order that was no longer in force was moot), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An award of conduct-based attorney fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (citing 10 review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Kristin Anne Schmidt v. Jonathan William Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kristin Anne Schmidt v. Jonathan William Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sep.
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Holly v. Anderson v. Derrik T. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Holly v. Anderson v. Derrik T. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Conduct- based attorney-fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.” -65 (Minn. App. 2000) (referring to “the breadth of the district court’s discretion in awarding conduct-based attorney fees” and finding no abuse of its “broad discretion”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because of our deference to the district court’s fact-finding role, we review the record in a light favorable to the findings, review denied (Minn. Sept.