Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Andrasko v. Andrasko, 443 N.W.2d 228.

37 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Jamie Leigh Nendza v. Jason Nendza Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And to support her application for an extension, “sister submitted an affidavit and testified that she still feared 12 Jason also argues that a district court cannot rely on averments in the original OFP petition or affidavits supporting the extension “without testimony,”
Christina Alexis Newland v. Tory Michael Schaaf Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2, 2020) (reasoning that “district court may treat an affidavit and petition for an [order for protection] as evidence at a hearing”) ( rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of: Alysia Sue Eschenbacher and On Behalf of Minor Child v. Justin Taylor Eschenbacher Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Andrasko v. Andrasko, for example, we reversed an OFP due to insufficient evidence, observing that the district court did not ask the petitioner to “affirm or discuss her allegations of abuse” and did not ask the respondent “any questions concerning domestic abuse, threats, or any intent to do harm.”
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze (A23-1837), In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze (A23-1837), In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To support his argument that the district court’s findings are inadequate
In re the Matter of: Sheila Sophia Niaz, OBO C. A. N v. David Dean Niaz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
To establish domestic abuse, a party must show “present harm or an intention on the part of [the alleged abuser] to do present harm.”
Charles Matthew Waters v. Anita Marie Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court has construed domestic abuse to require “either a showing of present harm or an intention on the part of [the] appellant to do present harm.” -30 (Minn. App. 1989).
In the Matter of: Joanne Nicola Kinney v. Patrick William Kinney Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-31 (Minn. App. 1989) (holding that a district court erred by failing to make findings to support its decision to grant an OFP).
In the Matter of Brita Johanna Springstead, on behalf of minor child v. Roberto Menchaca Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of: Mara Jareth Butler, and on behalf of minors v. Andrew John Jakes Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To establish domestic abuse, a party must show “present harm or an intention on the part of [the alleged abuser] to do present harm.”
In the Matter of: Heidi Kay Wiplinger obo minor children v. Nicholas John Wiplinger Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Matter of: Kimberly Rose Wangsness and on Behalf of Minor Children v. Brian Penkert Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To establish domestic abuse, a party must show “present harm or an intention on the part of the [alleged abuser] to do present harm.”
In the Matter of: Chelsey Lynn Ness, and On Behalf of the Minor Children v. Hope Michelle Wolfe Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Aljubailah ex rel. A. M. J. v. James 903 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Aljubailah ex rel. A. M. J. v. James 903 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The definition of ‘domestic abuse’ under the Act requires either, a showing of present harm or an intention on the part of [the actor] to do present harm.” see Chosa ex rel.
In the Matter: Nita Maria Hicks v. Richard Warren Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Lisa Marie Hessel, individually and o/b/o minor children v. Michael John Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, a district court issuing an OFP “err[s] by failing to make any findings concerning domestic abuse.” Andrasko v. Andrasko , (reversing OFP from domestic abuse in part because of failure to make domestic abuse findings).
In the Matter of: Colleen Marie Siverling v. Dominic Andrew Bjerke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Colleen Marie Siverling v. Dominic Andrew Bjerke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that findings were insufficient when the district court “made no written or oral findings, and filled in the blank space for findings with a statement that it was not making a determination of guilt or any violation”); (concluding that the district court “erred by failing to make findings regarding domestic abuse”).
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But while particularized findings are required when “time-significant child[-]custody decisions” are at issue in a domestic-abuse proceeding, no such requirement exists for other OFPs.
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-31 (Minn. App. 1989) (reversing issuance of OFP when district court, among other things, failed to make findings regarding domestic abuse).
In re the Matter of: Cindy Jean Oberg obo minor child v. Gregory Brian Bradley 868 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Distinguished In re the Matter of: Cindy Jean Oberg obo minor child v. Gregory Brian Bradley 868 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
18, 1985), d 228, 230 (Minn. App. 1989).
Chosa Ex Rel. Chosa v. Tagliente 693 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Chosa Ex Rel. Chosa v. Tagliente 693 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In order to establish domestic abuse, a party must show “present harm or an intention on the part of the [alleged abuser] to do present harm.” (Minn.App.
Hughs on Behalf of Praul v. Cole 572 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hughs on Behalf of Praul v. Cole 572 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
El Nashaar v. El Nashaar 529 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Mechtel v. Mechtel 528 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
El Nashaar v. El Nashaar 529 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(order for protection must be supported by findings concerning domestic abuse).
Mechtel v. Mechtel 528 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The court deleted the portion of the pre-printed order for protection form that read “Acts of domestic abuse have occurred, including the following” and substituted “The Court makes no determination of guilt or any violation but will issue this mutual Restraining Order.” -31 (Minn.App.1989), this court held that where the district court made no written findings, did not fill in the blank space for findings on the pre-printed order for protection form, and did not make any oral findings on the re
State v. Andrasko 454 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Andrasko 454 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Nohner v. Anderson 446 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nohner v. Anderson 446 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1989