Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Clark v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 383.

74 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Abdihafid Hariri Hassan Yusuf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1(a) (2024); (“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest s of the child”), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1(a) (2024); (“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Custody of the Children of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(holding a reduction in parenting time was not a restriction), -86 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding a reduction of parenting time did constitute a restriction), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that reduction by one-half was substantial); -86 (Minn. App. 1984) (concluding that reduction from 14 weeks to five and one-half weeks (i.e., 61 percent) was restriction), rev. 9 denied (Minn. June 12, 1984), with Suleski, d at 337 (concluding that reduction from 273 overnights to 245 overnights (i.e., 10 percent) was not substantial); Danielson
In re the Custody of A. J.-E. L., William Robert Laurie v. Brittany Elizabeth Nebel, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Custody of A. J.-E. L., William Robert Laurie v. Brittany Elizabeth Nebel, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
While a reduction in parenting time “is not necessarily a restriction of parenting time,” a restriction may occur “when a change to parenting time is ‘substantial.’” -24 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotations omitted); see, -86 (Minn. App. 1984) (determining multiple reductions in parenting time that reduced parenting time from 14 to 5 1/2 weeks per year was a restriction), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Suleski, d at 337 (concluding that reduction of approximately seven percent was not restriction); -08 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding that reduction from every other weekend to six weeks per year (i.e., 52 overnights to 42 overnights, or 19%) was not restriction); -86 (Minn. App. 1984), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984) (concluding that reduction from 14 weeks to five and one-half weeks (i.e., 61%) was restriction).
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Ann Jahraus Pesola, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
9 “It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.” rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Ellen Jo Schneider, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over visitation is what is in the best interest of the child.” rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Trung Thien Do, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest[s] of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Custody of: N. Y. B., James Edward Bono, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.” Clark v. Clark , review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
A19-1323 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1(a), 10 1(b), 5 (2019); see also, e.g. , ; review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Custody of: R. T. R., C. T. R., and S. C. T. R., Robby Romero, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Kristy Ann Ryan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest[s] of the child.”), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Custody of: B. L. F. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest [s] of the child.” Clark v. Clark , review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Ann Hughes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2009) (“The bedrock principle underlying any decision affecting the custody of minor children is that their best interests must be protected and fostered.”); (Minn.App.
In re the Marriage of: Molly Kathryn Sanders, joint-petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Clark v. Clark , review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Matter of: J. S. S., petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1(a); review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem 891 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem 891 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 124; (concluding that a change in parenting time was insubstantial when it was caused by a move to a different state and the parties were left with nearly equal parenting time after the change); -86 (Minn. App. 1984) (concluding that a gradual erosion of parenting time from 14 weeks per year to five and one-half weeks per year was a substantial change), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3(b) (describing best-interests test) (“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984)).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Louise Constantini v. Brent John Constantini Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Louise Constantini v. Brent John Constantini Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. 5 June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Chetly Ramsammy v. Ashley Marie Ramsammy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Chetly Ramsammy v. Ashley Marie Ramsammy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over visitation is what is in the best interest of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Christine Lynn Sypnieski, f/k/a Christine Lynn Holtz v. Kevin Douglas Holtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine Lynn Sypnieski, f/k/a Christine Lynn Holtz v. Kevin Douglas Holtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
DuPrece Lashae Slaughter v. Anissa Lachelle Black, Lisa Danielle Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DuPrece Lashae Slaughter v. Anissa Lachelle Black, Lisa Danielle Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe 855 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe 855 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
3(b) (describing best-interests test); (“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over [parenting time] is what is in the best interest of the child.”), review denied (Minn. June 12,1984).
In Re the Marriage of Dahl v. Dahl 765 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Dahl v. Dahl 765 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-86 (Minn.App.1984), re-mew denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that the record did not demonstrate why the existing arrangement was not in the child’s best interests), review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“It is well established that the ultimate question in all disputes over visitation is what is in the best interest of the child.” review denied (Minn. June 12, 1984).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by