Legal Opinion

Rutz v. Rutz

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 28, 2002No. CX-01-2126PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

Three months after entry of judgment dissolving Mark and Irina Rutz’s marriage, Irina Rutz petitioned to move the residence of their two children from Minnesota to Hawaii. The district court, relying in part on statutory provisions governing parenting plans, denied the motion. Although we conclude that the dissolution judgment did not create a parenting plan as defined by Minn.Stat. § 518.1705 (2000), we affirm the denial of the motion under Minn.Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3 (Supp.2001), because the record supports the district court’s finding that the purpose of the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Marriage of Pikula v. PikulaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Marriage of Sefkow v. SefkowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Auge v. AugeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. Burkstrand v. BurkstrandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Christensen v. HealeyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  2. Neu v. PollardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API