Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Durkin v. Hinich, 442 N.W.2d 148.

52 citing documents.

In Re the Custody of the Children of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
’” Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld , (); see also Durkin v. Hinich , (the presumption that a natural parent is entitled to custody may be overturned if there are grave and weighty reasons to separate a child from a natural parent (quotation omitted)).
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3( 3) (2022); see Durkin v. Hinich , d 148, 152 (Minn. 1989) (“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. S., D. S., C. P., J. H., … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. S., D. S., C. P., J. H., … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Even though the [district] court is given broad discretion in determining custody matters, it is important that the basis for the court’s 9 decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.” (quotation omitted); (citing this aspect of Durkin in a juvenile- protection appeal), rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
Lisa Ann Poseley v. Andrew Scott Duff, and Lisa Ann Poseley on Behalf of Minor ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lisa Ann Poseley v. Andrew Scott Duff, and Lisa Ann Poseley on Behalf of Minor ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: M. V. K., d/o/b July 12, 2017, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Grace Friesen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
7 The district court has broad discretion in determining custody matters, although it must set forth the basis for its decision “with a high degree of particularity.” (quotation omitted).
In Re the Marriage of: NaCole LaVae Ferden, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Even thou gh the [district] court is given broad discretion in determining custody matters, it is important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Best interests “The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.”
In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But, “[e]ven though the [district] court is given broad discretion in determining custody matters, it is important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.” d 148, 151 (Minn. 1989) (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]t is important that the basis for the [district] court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.” (quotation omitted).
Ramirez v. Luna 830 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Ramirez v. Luna 830 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 266
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
District courts have “broad discretion in determining custody matters,” and we agree with the recognition of the court of appeals in Dailey v. Chermak “that there is no absolute prohibition under Minnesota law against awarding child custody on the condition of maintaining a specific geographic residence for the child, as long as that residence is shown clearly and genuin
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Johnson-Smolak v. Fink 703 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Johnson-Smolak v. Fink 703 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
custody of the child remained in a third party, despite the fact that the mother was not found to be unfit.
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
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(child support); (parenting time); , 151 (Minn.1989) (custody); (recusal motion), review denied (Minn. Aug.
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 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
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Wallin, 290 Minn. at 265-66 , d at 630-31 ; State ex rel.
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“The trial court has broad discretion to determine matters of custody.”
Marriage of Gibson v. Gibson 471 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Gibson v. Gibson 471 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
§ 518.-18(d)(i), (ii) & (iii) (1990); (applying analysis).
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Ladd 463 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1990
In Re the Custody of M.A.L. 457 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Custody of M.A.L. 457 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal 457 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal 457 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-53 (Minn.1989) (presumption favoring natural parent may be overturned only if “grave and weighty” reasons exist).