Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203.

661 citing documents.

Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
29, 1996); (explaining that reviewing courts generally affirm a district court’s credibility determinations, since the district court is in the best position to assess witnesses).
Roquemore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 610 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Roquemore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 610 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(reversing court of appeals, noting “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them”); see also Blanche v.1995 Pontiac Grand Prix, (Stringer, dissenting) (“[W]e have long recognized that ‘[c]ourts have nothing to do with
In Re the Welfare of P.R.L. 606 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stensrud v. LYON COUNTY DITCH 7 609 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of P.R.L. 606 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-212 (Minn.1988) (in lengthy child custody dispute, evidence concerning four and one-half years since marital separation “crucial” to determining current best interests of child).
Stensrud v. LYON COUNTY DITCH 7 609 N.W.2d 286 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
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
LaChapelle v. Mitten 607 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(reversing court of appeals, noting “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them”).
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Tonka Tours, (whether a party acts in good faith is essentially a credibility determination); (appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Paternity of BJH 573 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A.J.S. v. M.T.H. 573 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Paternity of BJH 573 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A.J.S. v. M.T.H. 573 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Dobrin v. Dobrin 569 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Dobrin v. Dobrin 569 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1997
v. Sefkow as follows: We have criticized before the court of appeals’ misapplication of the scope of review when it has usurped the role of the trial court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts: “Appellate review of custody 3 determinations is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (citations omitted).
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
To defeat that presumption, the party opposing removal must offer evidence which would establish that the removal is not in the best interests of the child and would endanger the child’s health and well-being, Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (d)(iii) (1994), or that the removal is intended to interfere with visitation, Minn. Stat. § 518.175 , subd.
Marriage of Sanderson v. Sanderson 541 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1995
Marriage of Sanderson v. Sanderson 541 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1995
In re Adopt K.L.L. 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Matter of KLL 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In re Adopt K.L.L. 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
52.01; (“deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses”).
Matter of KLL 515 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
52.01; ("deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses").
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 508 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1993
Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers 508 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1993
Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 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
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
Criticized In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 452 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 452 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
wherein we said, “Only if this [separation] date is *222 reasonably close to the actual trial does the Pikula analysis have any viability.” In Sefkow , however, the parties had been litigating custody for 4¾⅛ years after separation.
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 439 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 439 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS Standard of Review “Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” ( Berndt v. Berndt, 292 N.W.
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(a de novo review of the record by the court of appeals in a child custody proceeding held to exceed the scope of review of the appellate court).
Marriage of Lyon v. Lyon 439 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Lyon v. Lyon 439 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1989
Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co. 436 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1989
Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co. 436 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1989
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 429 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 429 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(“only if this date is reasonably close to the actual trial”).
Doren v. Doren 431 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1988