Legal Opinion

Vangsness v. Vangsness

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 21, 2000No. C0-99-1551PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Appellant Mamie Vangsness and respondent Michael Vangsness married and had three children. The 1998 judgment dissolving their marriage reserved issues, including custody. The order placing temporary custody of the children with appellant forbade the parties from criticizing each other or trying to influence the children’s custodial preference. In May 1999, following a trial, the district court placed physical custody of the children with respondent. Appellant’s post-trial motion alleged that she was entitled to a new trial because the evidence did not support the custody…

2Cases cited28 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. Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer PressSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  5. Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Chaney v. Minneapolis Community Development AgencyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
  2. Marriage of Prahl v. PrahlCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Marriage of Peterka v. PeterkaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  4. State v. McCormickCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
  5. Hagen v. SchirmersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API