Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393.

147 citing documents.

In Re the Custody of: X. W. F., Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
“[WJhile the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to modify a custody order if warranted, it may not do so absent an eviden-tiary hearing in which witnesses may be cross-examined.”
In re the Marriage of: Joanna Brooks Benson, f/k/a Joanna Lee Brooks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellant-mother suggests, superseded by statute, Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Holly Beth Ogilvie, n/k/a Holly Beth Gislason v. John Richard Ogilvie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Holly Beth Ogilvie, n/k/a Holly Beth Gislason v. John Richard Ogilvie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Before 2006 superseded by statute, Minn. Stat § 518.175, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Christina Lynn Clark v. Shon Raymond Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Christina Lynn Clark v. Shon Raymond Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
30, 1987), superseded by statute, MinmStat.
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
has no remaining vitality because it has been superseded in its entirety by statute.
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
(observing that the statute permits denial of removal only when the custodian’s purpose is to interfere with visitation rights and denial is not proper “simply because the move may require an adjustment in the existing pattern of visitation”).
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
(noting district court may apportion visitation costs after physical custodian removes child from Minnesota).
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Second, referring to a presumption favoring a custodial parent’s Irina Rutz also argues that this record is insufficient to overcome that presumption.
In re A.R.M. 611 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re ARM 611 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In re A.R.M. 611 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(noting removal of child from state may "effect a modification of custody” and that such removals shall be granted unless party opposing removal "establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the move is not in the best interests of the child.”) Moreover, it is procedurally more complex to obtai
In Re ARM 611 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(noting removal of child from state may "effect a modification of custody" and that such removals shall be granted unless party opposing removal "establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the move is not in the best interests of the child.") Moreover, it is procedurally more complex to obtai
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese 599 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1999
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
this court determined that Minn.Stat.
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
(when modification of visitation is required due to removal of child from jurisdiction, district court shall make reasonable and necessary adjustments to visitation schedule provided the adjustments are in child’s best interests); Danielson, d at 406, 407 (following removal of children to Mon
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 508 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1993
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 508 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1993
at 311 (-400 (Minn.1983)).
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
3 (1990); (“the limited purpose [of Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Ballard v. Wold 486 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Ballard v. Wold 486 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
1 (1990); (applying section 518.176, subdivision 1).
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Geiger v. Geiger 470 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Geiger v. Geiger 470 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
when a custodial parent petitions the court for permission to remove the residence of a child to another state, the court presumes that removal with the parent will be in the best interests of the child and will grant permission to remove without an evi-dentiary hearing “[ujnless the party opposing
Novak v. Novak 446 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Novak v. Novak 446 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
399 (Minn.1983) (permitting proof by a noncustodial parent that removal of the child from the state “is not in the best interests of the child”).
Marriage of Tiggelaar v. Tiggelaar 433 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987