Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Englund v. Englund, 352 N.W.2d 800.

55 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Brooks J. Waldron, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1 See Minn. Stat. 518.18 (2020); Englund v. Englund , d 800, 802 (Minn. App. 1984) (“If the affidavits accompanying the motion for modification do not allege sufficient facts to allow a cour t to reach the findings required by § 518.18, the trial court is required to deny the motion.” ().
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Englund v. Englund , (M inn.
In re the matter of: Eric Thurman Clinton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If the affidavits accompany ing the motion for modification do not allege sufficient facts to allow a court to reach the findings required by [section] 518.18, the [district] court is required to deny the motion.” Englund v. Englund , (citing Nice-Peterson v. Nice - Peterson, ).
In re the matter of: Michael John Hernandez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Anna Modeo, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Nice–Petersen v. Nice –Petersen, (finding no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing when affidavits failed to set forth a change of circumstances justifying modification); (finding that no evidentiary hearing is required “ where the affidavits do not contain sufficient justification for the modification”).
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jan H. Kehlenbeck v. Kurt H. Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The party requesting modification of a child custody order has the burden of proving on a preliminary basis that a significant change in circumstances has occurred.” (d 471, 472 (Minn. 1981)).
Rivera v. Ramsey County 615 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rivera v. Ramsey County 615 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Elgard v. Dudley 471 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Elgard v. Dudley 471 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz 438 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz 438 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In re the Marriage of Davis 418 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re the Marriage of Davis 418 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Barr v. Barr 416 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Barr v. Barr 416 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Trial courts have broad discretion in determining child custody matters “and will not be reversed absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.”
Marriage of Haugberg v. Haugberg 406 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Bennyhoff v. Bennyhoff 406 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Bennyhoff v. Bennyhoff 406 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
child support was not expressly reserved and this court concluded that the “plain meaning” of the decree language clearly indicated that child support obligations had been set by the trial court at the time of the initial decree.
Marriage of Haugberg v. Haugberg 406 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
England, v. England, (Minn.Ct.
Marriage of Theisen v. Theisen 405 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Theisen v. Theisen 405 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wenndt v. Wenndt 398 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wenndt v. Wenndt 398 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(purpose of custody modification requirements to “impart finality and stability”).
Marriage of Kimmel v. Kimmel 392 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kimmel v. Kimmel 392 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Warner v. Warner 391 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Warner v. Warner 391 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
in which this court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to modify a child support provision in the decree unless the parties could show a change of circumstances.
Marriage of Lundell v. Lundell 387 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Lundell v. Lundell 387 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kimmel v. Kimmel 382 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kimmel v. Kimmel 382 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hunt v. Hunt 381 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hunt v. Hunt 381 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ITASCA CTY. SOC. SERV. EX REL. HALL v. David 379 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ITASCA CTY. SOC. SERV. EX REL. HALL v. David 379 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Downey v. Zwigart 378 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Downey v. Zwigart 378 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 376 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 376 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin 366 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Distinguished Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin 366 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
as support for her argument that the father’s affidavit was insufficient to meet the threshold requirements of § 518.18(d).
Marriage of Brown v. Brown 363 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1985