Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi, 485 N.W.2d 311.

32 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 124 (d 311, 315 (Minn. App. 1992)), we have more recently noted that “[t] here is no statutory definition of what constitutes a ‘restriction’ of parenting time[,]” Suleski, d at 336.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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
In re the Marriage of: Leann Rae Hinrichs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
To sufficiently allege a prima facie case for the first element of endangerment, the party seeking to restrict parenting time must allege “that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances from the time when the original or amended custody order was issued.” Nice-Petersen, d at 472; -1 7 (Minn. App. 1992) (applying the Nice-Peterson framework to a motion to restrict parenting time).
In Re the Custody of: X. W. F., Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Joy Krishnan, f/k/a Beuning, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(instructing that a parent requesting modification of a custody arrangement “is entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon showing a prima facie case for the requested modifica tion”).
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
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
And, we determined that a motion requesting the reduction of parenting time from alternating weeks and holidays during the school year to having no parenting time during the school year constituted a request for a “restriction” of parenting time, which was governed by Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Boland v. Murtha 800 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-16 (Minn.App.1992) (applying the Nice-Petersen procedure to a motion for substantial modification, including a restriction, of parenting time).
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that, under subdivision 5, the best-interest standard governs modifications except in cases of "more substantial reductions of visitation," and that a restriction involves "greater alteration of visitation rights”).
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
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 518.18 addresses “substantial” changes in visitation, for example, where a parent “proposed to alter an arrangement from equal care to one where she has custody during the entire school year.” -16 (Minn.App.1992).
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
5 (2000) (requiring evidentiary hearing if custodial parent makes specific allegations that visitation places custodial parent or child in danger of harm); (concluding custody modification standard governs substantial modifications of visitation rights).
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Tweeton v. Tweeton 560 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Marriage of Tweeton v. Tweeton 560 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Similarly, we find no merit in appellant’s argument that our decision in Lutzi v. Lutzi requires us to elevate the form of the custody arrangement, as it is labeled in a stipulation, over the substance of the arrangement, the daily structuring of the care of the children between the parents.
Marriage of Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 529 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 529 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
A substantial alteration of visitation rights amounting to a “restriction” of visitation requires findings that the existing arrangement “is likely to endanger the child’s health or developmént.” see also Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 508 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Smith v. Smith 508 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 494 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 494 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1993