Cited by

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

416 citing documents.

Marriage of Steinke v. Steinke 428 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Steinke v. Steinke 428 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
In the meantime, and remanded Sefkow I to the court of appeals for further consideration in light of that decision.
In Re the Welfare of C.K. 426 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1988
In Re the Welfare of C.K. 426 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1988
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 425 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 425 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS I. “Appellate 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 Johnson v. Johnson 424 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 424 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Lenz v. Lenz 415 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Lenz v. Lenz 415 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In reviewing the evidence this court will not overturn the trial court’s finding that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case unless the finding is “clearly erroneous.” Minn.R.Civ.P.
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Appellate review of a custody determination is “limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Kennedy *674 v. Kennedy
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
On petition for further review
Marriage of Sucher v. Sucher 416 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sucher v. Sucher 416 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1, lists the relevant factors to be considered and evaluated by the court in determining the “best interests of the child.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has elaborated on these statutory factors with the observation that the “best interests of the child” under the statute are usually served by granting custody to the child’s “primary parent.” The Pikula court adopted 10 indicia of primary parenthood and concluded that when both parents seek custody of a child too young to express a preference, an
In Re the Welfare of J.W. 415 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1987
In Re the Welfare of J.W. 415 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1987
See, e.g., J.W, supra at 794-95 (neglect); (custody); (termination).
Marriage of Bear v. Bear 415 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Bear v. Bear 415 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Splinter v. Landsteiner 414 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Splinter v. Landsteiner 414 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl 413 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl 413 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Welfare of V.H. 412 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Welfare of V.H. 412 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1, when the evidence indicates that both parents would be suitable custodians, the intimacy of the relationship between the primary parent and the child should not be disrupted “without strong reasons which relate specifically to the [primary] parent’s capacity to provide and care for the child.” ().
Marriage of Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz 410 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz 410 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Appellate 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 Peterson v. Peterson 408 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 408 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nies v. Nies 407 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Coady v. ViRay 407 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Coady v. ViRay 407 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
and placed improper emphasis on Coady’s superior financial position.
Marriage of Nies v. Nies 407 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ANALYSIS I. Appellate 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.”
Ozenna v. Parmelee 407 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kangas v. Kangas 406 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ozenna v. Parmelee 407 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kangas v. Kangas 406 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This court’s review of a trial court’s custody determination is to ascertain “whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Marriage of Mowers v. Mowers 406 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mowers v. Mowers 406 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 406 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Goose v. Goose 406 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 406 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This court agreed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find that appellant was Brandon’s
Marriage of Goose v. Goose 406 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court agreed that it would be in Garrick’s best interests to grant custody to appellant, to grant custody to respondent: If the court were permitted to use the best interest of the child test and Minn. Stat. § 518.17 , [subd.