Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720.

78 citing documents.

HULL v. WILLIAMS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, (stating that “cases involving family law fall within the district court’s original jurisdiction” because “[f]amily dissolution remedies, including remedies in child support decisions, rely on the district court’s inherent equitable powers”); (no
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
To waive sovereign immunity under clause two, a statute must have some other “indication that the legislature meant it to apply to the state.”
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 the Matter of the Petition of Scott Peter Zenanko Under Minn. Stat. 14.381. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[A]n administrative agency lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues because those questions are within the exclusive province of the judicial branch.” Holmberg v. Holmberg , f’d
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
28, 2005); (stating that section 5 18.14, subdivision 1, requires t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y f e e s i f statutory requirements are met).
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Nelson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A finding that the three requirements are satisfied “requires the court to award attorney fees.”
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (2018); -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In the Matter of a Petition for Decertification of an Exclusive Representative Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 questions are within the exclusive province of the judicial branch”), aff’d
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , *10 Holmberg v. Holmberg , , 726 (Minn. 1999).
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
The State Auditor also relies on our decision in Holmberg v. Holmberg , to argue that section 6.481 unconstitutionally transfers the executive department's authority to control and conduct county audits from a constitutional officer to counties and private entities.
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015
rely on the district court’s inherent equitable powers.”
Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
Nichols v. State 858 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2015
Nichols v. State 858 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2015
State v. Bentley, 224 Minn. 244, 247 , , 771 (1947); see also F.A.A.
Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
State v. Bentley, 224 Minn. 244, 247, see also F.A.A.
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
See, (“Family dissolution remedies, including remedies in child support decisions, rely on the district court’s inherent equitable powers.”); Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nichols v. State, Office of the Secretary 842 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nichols v. State, Office of the Secretary 842 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lund, d at 143; Stoecker v. Moeglein, 269 Minn. 19, 24 , *25 State v. Bentley, 224 Minn. 244, 247 , , 771 (1947).
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership 827 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2013
County of Grant v. Koser 809 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Grant v. Koser 809 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Although the district court applied $1,764.15 of the lump-sum RSDI benefit to satisfy father's child-support arrearages, it determined that the remaining $2,987.85 was a windfall to the children, aff'd
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
terest); (3) an ascertainable date of maturity; (4) a specific mechanism for enforcement; and (5) an explanation of whether the lien is in the nature of child support or purely a division of property, , 825 & n. 8 (Minn.App.1998) (noting *796 that lien in nature of child support is subject to modification, while divisions of property are final), aff'd
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Eagle Lake of Becker County Lake Ass'n v. Becker County Board of Commissioners 738 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Eagle Lake of Becker County Lake Ass'n v. Becker County Board of Commissioners 738 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(ruling that a portion of the then-existing administrative child support system was unconstitutional but delaying, for five months, the effect of the judgment with respect to other parties and cases).
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 714 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 714 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2006
in deciding that wage withholding was a judicial remedy.
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
More recently, the supreme court held that an administrative child-support process violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 694 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 694 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
holding that the legislatively-created, administrative child-support process violated the separation of powers provision of the Minnesota constitution, the supreme court noted that “dissolution remedies, including remedies in child support decisions, rely on the district court’s inherent equitable po