Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1986–1990 0 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 sentences1989Pikula, 374 N.W.2d at 713 . 1987Id. at 712 . | 1 | 3 |
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Johnson v. Johnson, 424 N.W.2d 85, 89 (Minn.Ct.App.1988) (failure to consider important role of primary caretaker when conducting best interest analysis requires reversal). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow
green
2 sentences1990Later, in Sefkow , we observed that the primary caretaker doctrine is an “extension and refinement of the statutory criteria” and that “the statute mandates a multifaceted inquiry into ‘all relevant factors’ * * *.” Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 212 . 1990Later, in Sefkow , we observed that the primary caretaker doctrine is an "extension and refinement of the statutory criteria" and that "the statute mandates a multifaceted inquiry into `all relevant factors' * * *." Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 212 . | 3 | 1988–1990 |
Marriage of Jones v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence1987Appellant cites Jones v. Jones, 377 N.W.2d 38 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), for the proposition that the primary caretaker doctrine is insufficient to determine custody if the primary parent cannot adequately parent at all times. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow
green
1 sentence1986Respondent next argues that even if Pi-kula applies,.“there is strong evidence that the Respondent Philip Speltz participated significantly in the primary care of Jay and Laura.” The indicia of primary parenthood set forth in Pikula , however, make it “plain that a parent who has performed the traditional role of homemaker will ordinarily be able to establish primary parent status.” Id. at 714 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.