County of Stearns v. Barnell
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Blessing v. FreestoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- 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
- STUDOR, INC. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Charlene Karen Jundt v. Marcus Edward JundtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024