Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199.

247 citing documents.

Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Beverly Abuzzahab v. Faruk Said Abuzzahab Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Beverly Abuzzahab v. Faruk Said Abuzzahab Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Anita Joan Rakow v. Gary Arnold Rakow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Anita Joan Rakow v. Gary Arnold Rakow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[District courts have] broad discretion in deciding whether to award maintenance and before an appellate court determines that there has been a clear abuse of that discretion, it must determine that there must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”
In re the Marriage of: DeWayne Stanley Farr v. Sophia Marie Farr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: DeWayne Stanley Farr v. Sophia Marie Farr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court abuses its discretion by making “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record,” “by making findings unsupported by the evidence[,] or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Foster v. Foster 802 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Foster v. Foster 802 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A district court abuses its discretion when evidence in the record does not support the factual findings, the court misapplied the law, or the court settles a dispute in a way “that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Vasseei v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc. 793 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vasseei v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc. 793 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
7(d)(2); (holding in the family-law context that a trial court abuses its discretion by improperly applying the law); Whitaker v. 3M Co., (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion when the district court improperly applies the law.”), review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M. 791 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M. 791 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Among other ways, a district court abuses its discretion if it acts “against logic and the facts on record,” or if it enters fact findings that are unsupported by the record, or if it misapplies the law
Marriage of Maiers v. Maiers 775 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Maiers v. Maiers 775 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
202 & n. 3 (Minn.1997).
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of McConnell v. McConnell 710 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of McConnell v. McConnell 710 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that “[ijmplicit in Minn.Stat.
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (“Just as a district court’s adherence to law of the case cannot insulate an issue from appellate review, a court of appeals’ adherence to the law of the case cannot insulate an issue from [the U.S. Supreme] Court’s review.”); (acknowledging that the first court of appeals decision was the law of the case following denial of a petition for review and, as such, generally not subject to reexamination on a second appeal to the court of appeals, but nevertheless reviewi
In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating “each marital dissolution proceeding is unique and centers upon the individualized facts and circumstances of the parties and that, accordingly, it is unwise to view any marital dissolution decision as enunciating an immutable rule of law applicable in other proceeding”).
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(recognizing statutory maintenance factors as “implieit[ly]” addressed).
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000