Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Martinez v. State, 353 N.W.2d 135.

35 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 135, 138 (Minn. 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 135, 138 (Minn. 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Angela Marie Backman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Melissa F. Feierabend, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Honke annotates this: “All of our precedents cited by the parties dealt with either marital property awards; pre -dissolution, non-marital property; or the income of the payor spouse.” Honke then cites four cases: Broms v. Broms , (implicitly recognizing that a maintenance-seeking spouse could use the income from a pre -dissolution non -marital family trust for self -support); Curtis v. Curtis , -55 (Minn. 20 16) (considering the income potential of a stock portfolio awarded as part of a marital
Charles Edward Honke, Minn. 2021
d 135, 138 (Minn. 1984) (implicitly recognizing that a maintenance-seeking spouse could use the income from a pre-dissolution, non- marital family trust for self -support); Curtis, d at 254–55 (considering the income potential of a stock portfolio awarded as part of a marital property award); Erlandson, 318 N.
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Herman Goldenberg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Broms v. Broms , , 138 (Minn. 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Robert Joseph Hoolihan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[N]o single statutory factor for determining the type or 6 amount of maintenance is dispositive.” Broms v. Broms
In re the Marriage of: Praveen Prabhakaran, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[N]o single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive.”
John Frederick Stolte, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Each case must be decided on its own facts and no single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
For example, we considered whether a district court abused its discretion in awarding spousal maintenance.
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Each case must be decided on its own facts and no single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Anita Joan Rakow v. Gary Arnold Rakow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
3 “[N]o single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive.”
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
income generated by liquid assets.” (emphasis added); see also Lyon, d at 22 n.1 (considering “interest income” that obligee would receive by investing marital- 6 property); (similar); Rask, d at 853–54 (reasoning that maintenance was excessive when “interest income” that obligee would receive from marital-property award, “prudently invested,” would “enable [her] to live comfortably”).
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 135, 138 (Minn. 1984).
Marriage of Maiers v. Maiers 775 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Lee v. Lee 775 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2009
Marriage of Gales v. Gales 553 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1996
(reducing duration of maintenance award from ten years to five years for 32-year-old college graduate who was “capable of employment” and needed two years of studies to acquire an advanced degree upon dissolution of five-year marriage).
Marriage of Zamora v. Zamora 435 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Karg v. Karg 418 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“Each case must be decided on its own facts and no single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive.”
Marriage of Lunde v. Lunde 408 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Roel v. Roel 406 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Haaland v. Haaland 392 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 383 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Napier v. Napier 374 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Erlandson at 39 ; Fink at 341 ; McGowan at 360 .
Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kostelnik v. Kostelnik 367 N.W.2d 665 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the husband’s pre-tax income was approximately $60,000, and spousal maintenance was $1,000 per month.
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“The propriety of an award of maintenance to provide for [a spouse’s] reasonable needs while she obtains employment skills and enters the labor market is beyond dispute.”
Marriage of Fink v. Fink 366 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1985