11 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Pikula v. Pikulared2 sentences1989With regard to custody, the court concluded that the primary parent presumption adopted in Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn.1985), did not apply in this case. 1988Appellant Nancy Sinsa-baugh claims the trial court erred in failing to apply the primary parent doctrine established in Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn.1985) as of the parties’ date of sepa ration. | 2 | 7 |
Berndt v. Berndtgreen2 sentences1986Id. at 711, 714 ; see Berndt v. Berndt, 292 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn.1980). 1985The doctrine was introduced in Berndt, 292 N.W.2d at 2 , and Weatherly, 330 N.W.2d at 892. | 1 | 2 |
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2024Minnesota courts also may depart from the presumption in federal law that tax-dependency exemptions must be claimed by the custodial parent if the allocation is “incident to the 11 determination of child support and physical custody.” Id. at 63 (quoting Rogers v. Rogers, 622 N.W.2d 813, 823 (Minn. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Hansen v. Todnemgreen2 sentences2024See Hansen v. Todnem, 891 N.W.2d 51, 64 (Minn. App. 2017) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the dependency exemption to the parent who could not claim head of household status”), aff’d on other grounds, 908 N.W.2d at 595 n.1 (affirming parenting-time issue but declining to review allocation of tax-dependency exemptions). 2024Minnesota courts also may depart from the presumption in federal law that tax-dependency exemptions must be claimed by the custodial parent if the allocation is “incident to the 11 determination of child support and physical custody.” Id. at 63 (quoting Rogers v. Rogers, 622 N.W.2d 813, 823 (Minn. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnemgreen1 sentence2024See Hansen v. Todnem, 891 N.W.2d 51, 64 (Minn. App. 2017) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the dependency exemption to the parent who could not claim head of household status”), aff’d on other grounds, 908 N.W.2d at 595 n.1 (affirming parenting-time issue but declining to review allocation of tax-dependency exemptions). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mouagreen1 sentence2016Intent is a state of mind and is “generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Moua, 678 N.W.2d 29, 39 (Minn. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedygreen2 sentences1988See, e.g., Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892, 898-99 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (determining plausibility, under Pikula and subsequent cases, for a finding that both parents have equally contributed to care of a child; also announcing deference to trial court on findings that children have attained an age sufficient to express a custodial preference which may supplant the primary parent standard). 1988See, e.g., Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892, 898-99 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (determining plausibility, under Pikula and subsequent cases, for a finding that both parents have equally contributed to care of a child; also announcing deference to trial court on findings that children have attained an age sufficient to express a custodial preference which may supplant the primary parent standard). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Schultz v. Schultzgreen1 sentence1987Pikula, 374 N.W.2d at 713 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 383 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Weatherly v. Weatherlygreen1 sentence1985See Weatherly, 330 N.W.2d 890 ; Berndt, 292 N.W.2d 1 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pikula v. Pikula
green
1 sentence1985Substance The supreme court applied and detailed the primary parent doctrine followed by this court in Pikula v. Pikula, 349 N.W.2d 322 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.