Cited by

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

416 citing documents.

Marriage of Heim v. Heim 394 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Novotny v. Novotny 394 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Novotny v. Novotny 394 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Heim v. Heim 394 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ryan v. Ryan 393 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ryan v. Ryan 393 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
requiring the primary caretaker be awarded custody absent a showing of unfitness, the trial court stated: Petitioner and Respondent have shared equally in the daily care, nurturing and support of the child.
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 393 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ohm v. Ohm 393 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ohm v. Ohm 393 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In its attached memorandum
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 393 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stein v. Timmons 392 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stein v. Timmons 392 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In such a case, requires that “custody be awarded to the primary parent absent a showing that that parent is unfit to be the custodian.” Id.
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 391 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 391 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In addition, the trial court found that both parties are excellent parents, concluding that “a judicial declaration of preference of one parent over the other when such declaration is not essential is not in the best interests of the child.”
In Re the Welfare of J.W. 391 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
In Re the Welfare of J.W. 391 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
(custody determination); (termination of parental rights under Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Chafin v. Rude 391 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Chafin v. Rude 391 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aitkin County Family Service Agency v. Girard 390 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aitkin County Family Service Agency v. Girard 390 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Jorschumb v. Jorschumb 390 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Jorschumb v. Jorschumb 390 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
and that respondent’s failure to comply with a discovery request for psychological results rendered the testing psychologist’s trial testimony inadmissible.
In Re the Welfare of J.J.B. 390 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1986
In Re the Welfare of J.J.B. 390 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1986
See, (marital dissolution custody determinations); (modification of child custody award); (visitation rights); (custodial parent removing child from state); State ex rel.
Marriage of Lucas v. Lucas 389 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Lucas v. Lucas 389 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tuma v. Tuma 389 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tuma v. Tuma 389 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes 388 N.W.2d 3 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes 388 N.W.2d 3 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1(c), (d), (e), (f) (1984); -12 (Minn.1985).
Marriage of Lundell v. Lundell 387 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Lundell v. Lundell 387 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Storlien v. Storlien 386 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Storlien v. Storlien 386 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Speltz v. Speltz 386 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Speltz v. Speltz 386 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brauer v. Brauer 384 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brauer v. Brauer 384 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We will only consider whether the trial court “abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by *597 the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Bjerke v. Wilcox 384 N.W.2d 250 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bjerke v. Wilcox 384 N.W.2d 250 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of P.L.C. 384 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pekarek v. Pekarek 384 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of P.L.C. 384 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Wallin), rev’d on other grounds
Pekarek v. Pekarek 384 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We may only consider whether the trial court “abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”
Marriage of Schultz v. Schultz 383 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Schultz v. Schultz 383 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 382 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 382 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
does not apply because she and Carl Wolter equally shared parenting responsibilities.
Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman 382 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hoffa v. Hoffa 382 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986