Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stieler v. Ostrander, 70 N.W.2d 127.

63 citing documents.

Reliant Loan Servicing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“It has been held that the interpretation or clarification of a judgment, ambiguous or uncertain upon its face, involves neither an amendment of its terms nor a challenge to its validity .
Bruber Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Persolvent, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- 32 (Minn. 1955) (explaining that a district court’s interpretation must give “full effect .
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Kristine Ann Spratt Hansen, n/k/a Kristine Ann Spratt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Pamela J. Atkinson n/k/a Pamela J. Kraker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319, (ruling that a proper clarification of a judgment “involves neither an amendment of its terms nor a challenge to its validity”); see also Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Prof’ls, Inc., review granted (Minn. July 24, 2001) and appeal dismissed
In the Matter of the Petition of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation for a New Certificate of Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Petition of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation for a New Certificate of Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319, (stating that a district court may construe or clarify a judgment or order that is “ambiguous or uncertain upon its face”).
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Estate of Rettke v. Rettke 696 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Estate of Rettke v. Rettke 696 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 318
Ladwig v. Chatters 623 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Ladwig v. Chatters 623 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Gray v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 529 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gray v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 529 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The leading case on a court's inherent authority to interpret or clarify an order is Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312
Granse & Associates, Inc. v. Kimm 529 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Granse & Associates, Inc. v. Kimm 529 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319 , -32 (1955)).
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 449 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 449 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1989
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 440 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 440 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Marriage of Foster v. Childers 416 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Foster v. Childers 416 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 103 , (citing Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319 , ).
Marriage of Stewart v. Stewart 400 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 393 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 393 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
see also Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312
Marriage of Keil v. Keil 390 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Keil v. Keil 390 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319-20 , (clarification of ambiguous or uncertain judgment does not amount to an amendment of the judgment).
Marriage of Haala v. Haala 387 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Haala v. Haala 387 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319 , Edelman v, Edelman
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312
Marriage of Halverson v. Halverson 381 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Halverson v. Halverson 381 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Such interpretation “involves neither an amendment of [the judgment’s] terms nor a challenge to its validity.” Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319 , (divorce proceedings reopened to clarify and interpret judgment to determine whether trial court intended deceased ex-husband to have sole possession of government bonds).
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 379 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 379 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319 , the supreme court held that where the terms of a judgment are ambiguous or indefinite, upon a party’s motion, the court that ordered the judgment may clarify or interpret it.
Marriage of Robertson v. Robertson 376 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1985