Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343.

162 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
There are exceptions to the Thiele rule, (noting that the Thiele rule is not “ironclad”), but appellant does not raise any recognized exception or claim that any might apply here.
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that district court has broad discretion in modifying child-support order and that order will be reversed only if the district court “abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record”)
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
v. Anda, , 363 n. 6 (Minn.2007); Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., Inc., Oanes, d at 403 , 407 n. 4; State ex rel.
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 837 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2013
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 837 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2013
*708 Generally, we review orders modifying child support for abuse of discretion, and will reverse only if the district court “abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record,”
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
P. 103.04; (concluding that justice required consideration of an issue not raised below).
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(noting that the Thiele rule is not “ironclad”); Franklin v. Western Nat’l Mut.
Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen 814 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen 814 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(recognizing district court’s discretion in determining child support); Hesse, d at 103 (stating that, for purpose of calculating parenting-expense adjustment, parenting time is determined by terms of court order scheduling parenting time).
Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 799 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 799 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
P. 103.04 (allowing an appellate court to review questions “as the interests of justice may require”); (ruling that justice required consideration of an issue not properly before the court).
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
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
(concluding that justice required consideration of an issue not raised below); see also Oanes v. Allstate Ins.
In Re Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In Re Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
But our obligation as an appellate court is "to decide cases in accordance with law, and that responsibility is not to be `diluted by counsel's oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.'" , 673 n. 7 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted); (noting "authority to take any action `as the interest of justice may require'").
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(noting that “[t]he primary issue” on appeal was “whether the magistrate erred in finding that [father] was not voluntarily unemployed”); Minn. R. Civ.
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
Before Giesner *415 and until 1991, no express statutory provision addressed the imputation of income to an unemployed or underemployed obligor; the supreme court’s 1982 ruling in Giesner “filled this statutory gap.” (citing Giesner, d at 719-20 ).
Bauerly v. Bauerly 765 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bauerly v. Bauerly 765 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hunley v. Hunley 757 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Hunley v. Hunley 757 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 755 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2008
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services 755 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
We have said that “[w]e will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the district court abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” ( ).
Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan 741 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan 741 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that issues not raised in district court are waived on appeal); (invoking Minn. R. Civ.App.
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 699 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 699 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
App. P. 103.04; (concluding that “justice requires” consideration of child-support issue not previously raised because the court system has a key role in ensuring welfare of children).
Marriage of Eustathiades v. Bowman 695 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Eustathiades v. Bowman 695 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005