Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153.

40 citing documents.

State of MN, County of Lac qui Parle, Petitioner Below, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
superseded by statute, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, at 984-85, as recognized in Woolsey, d at 507 n.2.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. 2022
2 Minnesota Statutes section 518.18(d)(i) where we held that the then-existing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (1998) governed even when the parties’ dissolution decree stipulated to a different standard of review for custody modification.
Ross Ronald Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-59 (Minn. 1999) (holding that “considerable weight will be given to stipulations entered with the benefit of counsel, but the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of the children”), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, at 984-85 (codified a
Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Christensen v. Healey 899 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-57 (Minn. 1999) (following parties’ stipulation and rejecting argument based on amount of time spent with child), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, at 984-85 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (d)(i); (Minn.App.
In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, -57 (Minn. 1999) (following the parties’ stipulation and rejecting an argument based on time spent with the child); (noting that “the label the parties place on their stipulated custodial arrangement is binding”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. K. P. and A. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. K. P. and A. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When reviewing factual findings, this court views the record in the “light most favorable to the findings.”
In re the Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Custody of T.F. Shawn Kostrzewski v. Amy L. Frisinger, n/k/a Amy L. Budeau Minn. Ct. App. 2015
superseded in part on other grounds, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, as recognized in Goldman, d at 289; see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (2014).
In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This court reviews the record in a light most favorable to the district court’s findings, superseded by statute in part on other grounds, Minn. 4 Stat. § 518.18(d)(i) (2000), “giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility,” Goldman, d at 284.
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-59 (Minn.1999) (acknowledging children’s best interests are “paramount” concern in resolution of custody issues); (stating guiding principle “in all custody cases” is best interests of child); State ex.
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
superseded in part on other grounds by Act of Apr.
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
See, superseded in part on other grounds by Act of Apr.
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Johnson-Smolak v. Fink 703 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Johnson-Smolak v. Fink 703 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
1 See, -59 (Minn.1999) (custody modification); (child support); (presumption that physical custodian may remove a child from Minnesota), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
1(a) (2000) (enumerating best interest factors); (referring to the “paramount commitment to the best interest of the children”); (stating that child’s best interests are “paramount” concern in resolution of custody issues) (citation omitted).
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
1(a) (2000) (enumerating best interest factors); (referring to the "paramount commitment to the best interest of the children"); (stating that child's best interests are "paramount" concern in resolution of custody issues) (citation omitted).
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-59 (Minn.1999) (acknowledging children’s best interests are “paramount” concern in resolution of custody issues); (stating guiding principle “in all custody cases” is best interests of child); State ex.
Berg v. D.D.M. 603 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Berg v. D.D.M. 603 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding that the statutory endangerment standard applies to parties seeking a modification of an award of sole physical custody, even when the parties have stipulated to a different standard in their dissolution decree).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by