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 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
In Re the Marriage of Rose v. Rose 765 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bauerly v. Bauerly 765 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bauerly v. Bauerly 765 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-59 (Minn.1999) (acknowledging children’s best interests are “paramount” concern in resolution of custody issues); (stating guiding principle “in all custody cases” is best interests of child); State ex.
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Appellate review of custody modification and removal cases is limited to considering “ ‘whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’ ” Silbaugh, d at 641 ().
Soohoo v. Johnson 731 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2007
Soohoo v. Johnson 731 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2007
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
§ 518.18 are a legislative acknowledgment "[of] the importance of maintaining a consistent and stable custody situation”); ( , 711 n. 1 (Minn.1985) both noted "four of the nine [best-interests] criteria [of Minn.Stat.
Braend Ex Rel. Minor Children v. Braend 721 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Braend Ex Rel. Minor Children v. Braend 721 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rodgers v. Knauff 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
In Re Custody of NAK 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
Rodgers v. Knauff 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
In Re Custody of NAK 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
II Removal decisions for custodial arrangements not involving parenting plans are reviewed to determine whether “the *493 trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” ().
Ramirez v. Ramirez 630 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Ramirez v. Ramirez 630 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS Appellate review of child-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.”
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“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.”
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Lemcke v. Lemcke 623 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Lemcke v. Lemcke 623 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-59 (Minn.1999) (acknowledging children’s best interests are “paramount” concern in resolution of custody issues); (stating guiding principle “in all custody cases” is best interests of child); State ex.
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Review of custody determinations “is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
In Re the Welfare of M.J.L. 582 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of M.J.L. 582 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.”
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
this court said, “[a]ppellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Id.
Olson v. Olson 534 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1995
Olson v. Olson 534 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1995
603 , 121 L.Ed.2d 539 (1992)
Marriage of Courey v. Courey 524 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1994