Legal Opinion

County of Stearns v. Barnell

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 22, 2005No. A04-925, A04-1146PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge. *

In these consolidated child-support disputes, appellants Joseph Barnell and Randall Starr argue that Minnesota’s child-support guidelines violate the United States Constitution’s Supremacy, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses. Appellant Barnell also argues that the district court (1) abused its discretion in setting his child-support obligation at an excessive amount absent a finding that he was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and in denying reduction of his medical support obligation, and (2) made child-support findings unsupported by the evidence. We…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Blessing v. FreestoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. STUDOR, INC. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
  2. Charlene Karen Jundt v. Marcus Edward JundtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API