Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705.

416 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Tristan Joseph Trainer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“ Appellate review of custody 4 determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
A21-1064 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kenney, d at 224 (“[A] factfinder is not bound by witness testimony, even if uncontradicted, when there is reason to doubt the testimony.”); (“The trial court is not .
Miguel Lionel Garza, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Our review is therefore “limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Nicholas David Wivinus, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
County of Clay, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Theresa Blair, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Charles Edward Honke, Minn. 2021
An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court makes “findings unsupported by the evidence” or when it “improperly appl[ ies] the law.”
Myles John Sterling Mankus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Our “review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [d istrict] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Pikula v. Pikula
In re the Paternity of: B. L. T., T. L. M., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Our review “is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Pikula v. Pikula
In re the Matter of: Susan Kelly Lynn, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Custody of: R. T. R., C. T. R., and S. C. T. R., Robby Romero, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. H., R. W. G., and … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that the best interest of the child is the “guiding principle” in all custody cases).
In re the Marriage of: Gena Maria Kramp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
12 D E C I S I O N “Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Matter of: Awal Ismael Hussein, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest[s] of the child.”
, A18-1594 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Greta Mae Markuson, n/k/a Greta Mae Garcia, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A. S. v. K. C.-W. (In re C. F. N.) 923 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. S. v. K. C.-W. (In re C. F. N.) 923 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1 (2018) ; Olson v. Olson , , 549 (Minn. 1995) ; Pikula v. Pikula , , 711 (Minn. 1985).
In re the Marriage of: Rebekah Lynn Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Pikula v. Pikula
In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We review custody decisions to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings “unsupported by the evidence or b y improperly applying the law.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. D.-P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Sarah L Braun, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Thomas Hesse, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Anna Modeo, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
is limited to considering ‘whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’” Goldman v. Greenwood , ( (quoting Pikula v. Pikula , )).
In re the Marriage of: Linde Anne Sayen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
In re the Custody of J. M. H. and A. M. H. Roland John Hillstrom, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Matter of: Joseph Loren Conner, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A district court abuses [its] discretion [regarding parenting time] by making findings unsupported by the evidence or improperly applying the law.” (d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985)).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Peterson n/k/a Jennifer Ann Hirschey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In reviewing custody awards, this court determines “whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In Re the Marriage of: NaCole LaVae Ferden, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
lant now argues that the change of physical custody was an abuse of the district court’s discretion; she also argues that the district court was biased against her.1 D E C I S I O N “Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Matter of: Sedina Glover, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We limit our review of custody determinations to “whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Janelle Rozalind Spah, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Appellate review of custody de terminations is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making find ings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.”); Hagen v. Schirmers , (“ The statute and caselaw make clear that the ultimate issue [when determining parenting time] is the child’s best interests [.]”); Schisel v. Schisel
In re the Marriage of: Wakisha Nicole Fortwengler, n/k/a Alexa Nicole Schultz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Our review of custody determinations “is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the district court’s custody and parenting-time determinations for “whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In Re the Custody of N.O.K. Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Custody of N.O.K. Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that the district court 9 may disregard recommendations of a parenting-time evaluator if they are outweighed by other evidence).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”