Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Stich v. Stich, 435 N.W.2d 52.

101 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(remanding maintenance issue when findings were inadequate).
In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although effective appellate review “is possible only when the [district] court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration of all [relevant] factors,” “failure to make findings is not, alone, sufficient to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Draveetray Lyrell Williams, (A14-0696), Lawrence Craig Ogris, (A14-0705), Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Draveetray Lyrell Williams, (A14-0696), Lawrence Craig Ogris, (A14-0705), Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
d 353, 358 (Minn. App. 2004) (“A finding of a maintenance obligor’s ability to pay maintenance is required to support an award of maintenance.” ()); (stating that “it is not feasible to burden [the husband] with a maintenance obligation at the present time” since “[his] monthly expenses exceed his income by more than $400”); (“
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 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
See, (stating, in spousal-maintenance context, that “[e]ffective appellate review of the exercise of [the district court’s] discretion is possible only when the [district] court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration [of all relevant factors]”); Wallin v. Wallin
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 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
See, (stating that “[w]e cannot stress enough the importance of having findings of fact that demonstrate the trial court actually did take all relevant factors into consideration”); Putz, d at 353 -54 (quoting and applying Erickson); (remanding when district court’s findings were insufficient to allow an appellate court to determine whether the relevant statutory requirements were properly considered).
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
Effective appellate review of an award of maintenance “is possible only when the trial court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration of all factors relevant to an award.” (applying Stick to modification decision).
DRJ, INC. v. City of St. Paul 741 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
DRJ, INC. v. City of St. Paul 741 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Gatfield v. Gatfield 682 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gatfield v. Gatfield 682 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(remanding where district court failed to make adequate maintenance-related findings).
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
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
(proper appellate review is precluded when district court fails to make sufficiently detailed findings).
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers 606 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers 606 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(requiring findings to support maintenance rulings).
Marriage of Hughes v. Hughley 569 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Marriage of Hughes v. Hughley 569 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(remanding maintenance issue because findings were inadequate).
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(requiring sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate consideration of all relevant factors); see, (remanding maintenance modification for findings on former wife’s income, needs, probable duration of further schooling, and earnin
DonCARLOS v. DonCARLOS 535 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
DonCARLOS v. DonCARLOS 535 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens 501 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens 501 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
However, a requirements are met.
In Re the Marriage of Richards 472 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Marriage of Richards 472 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Klecker v. Klecker 454 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Klecker v. Klecker 454 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(“Effective appellate review of the exercise of [the trial court’s] discretion is possible only when the trial court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration [of all relevant factors]”); (“While the record may s
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by