Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wilson v. Moline, 47 N.W.2d 865.

59 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: N. J. M. and W. A. W., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951).
In Re the Custody of BJS: Joseph Stanton v. Amber Lee Finley, County of Fillmore Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 222 (quotation omitted); see also Wilson v. Moline , (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson i
In the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer v. Kyle Dalke Bachmayer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Wilson v. Moline, 13 (explaining that an appellate court’s “function .
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. M. D., C. J. M. and T. … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Commitment of Kenney, (quotation omitted); (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a fam
Snowman Construction v. Ceresota Funding II LLC, et al., Minnwest Bank Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: J. J. F. and T. D. H., Jr., … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951).
In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that function of appellate court is not to “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings” and that “[o]ur duty is performed when we consider all the evidence, as we have done here, and conclude that it reasona
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Mustaf Nur Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that function of “an appellate court does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of determining that it supports the [district] court’s findings,” and that an appellate court performs its duty when it “consider[s] all the evidence .
In re the Marriage of: Emily Kay Stilwagon v. Shawn Bradford Stilwagon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
If the l ength of judicial opinions is to be kept within reasonable bounds, appellate courts must more closely adhere to the purpose for which they exist”); (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings,” and that an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence, as we have
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If the length of judicial opinions is to be kept within reasonable bounds, appellate courts must more closely adhere to the purpose for which they exist.”); (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings,” and that an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence .
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. R. W., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Father also challenges the district court’ s consideration of th ese issues in the adjudication order, asserting simply that the district court “clearly erred” or “failed to make adequate findings.” An appellate court does not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings.”
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Ella Hoene v. Matthew Arnold Kramar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Wilson v. Moline , (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not requir e [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial c ourt’s findings,” and that an appellate court’s “duty is performed wh en [it] consider[s] all the evidence .
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Richard Russell Fageroos Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings” and that the court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence .
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Leigh Brinkman, and Robert Michael Brinkman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Wilson v. Moline , (stating that the function of “an appellate court does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings,” and an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence .
Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Barbara Wigley, Michael Wigley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that appellate courts need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings”).
John Koppi v. Robin Marsh, XYZ Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.”); (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findin gs” and that the court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence .
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer v. Kyle Dalke Bachmayer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
and determine that it reasonably supports the findings.” n.3 (Minn. App. 2018) (applying principle from Wilson).
In re the Estate of: Pauline Mary Serpico, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl v. Doreen Strosahl Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Custody of: S. K. S. Christian Schut v. Cynthia Schut Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Estate of: Irene B. Horton, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that i t supports the [district] court’s findings,” and an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] considers all the evidence, as we have do
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. F. and J. E., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, d 865, 870 (1951) (an appellate court’s function “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings” and an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the 6 evidence.
In re the Matter of: Joseph Loren Conner v. Jakklyn Marie Netland Minn. Ct. App. 2018
and determine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings.” d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951); n.3 (Minn. App. 2018) (applying this aspect of Wilson in family-law case), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Danielle M. Kerr, n/k/a Danielle M. Dubois v. Jonathan R. Kerr, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that an appellate court need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the pu rpose of demonstrating that i t supports the trial court’s findings,” and that its “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence .
In re the Custody of A. M. W. Kelly James Wadsen v. Jennifer Maggie Rosenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that the function of “an appellate court does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of dem onstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings ” 18 and an appellate court’s “ duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence
In re the Matter of: Joseph Loren Conner v. Jakklyn Marie Netland Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings” and that an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence
In re the Marriage of: James Edward Cook, II v. Hitomi Arimitsu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrati ng that it supports the trial court’s findings” and an appellate court’s “dut y is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence, a
State of Minnesota v. L. A. A Minn. Ct. App. 2017
and determine[s] [whether] it reasonably supports the [district court’s] findings.” Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W Minn. Ct. App. 2016
and determine[s] [whether] it reasonably supports the [district court’s] findings.” Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that the duty of an appellate court “is performed when we consider all the evidence .
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that the duty of an appellate court “is performed when we consider all the evidence .
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
and determine [whether] it reasonably supports the [district court’s] findings.” Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, d 865, 870 (1951).
In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings.” Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings.” Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and determine [whether] it reasonably supports the [district court’s] findings.” Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182
Rahn’s Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., et al., ELI Logistics, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rahn’s Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., et al., ELI Logistics, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that appellate courts need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings”).
In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Child of: C. A. L. and R. C. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that appellate courts need not “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying Wilson in a family law appeal).
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, (stating that “[o]ur function as an appellate court does not require us to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings” and “[o]ur duty is performed when we consider all the evidence, as we have done her
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004