Cited by

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

63 citing documents.

Marriage of Robertson v. Robertson 376 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Marriage of Koecher v. Koecher 374 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Koecher v. Koecher 374 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
March v. West Mall Partnership 367 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
March v. West Mall Partnership 367 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
§ 484.-01 (1984); see Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 319
Marriage of Edelman v. Edelman 354 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Edelman v. Edelman 354 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the interpretation or clarification of an ambiguous divorce decree did not constitute ■ a modification of the decree.
Marriage of Witt v. Witt 350 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Witt v. Witt 350 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 318
Palmi v. Palmi 140 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1966
Palmi v. Palmi 140 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1966
In Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312 , 70 N. W. (2d) 127 , this court held that where judgment is ambiguous or indefinite in its terms a party might move the court for an order for its interpretation and clarification *103 and it is within the province of such court to hear and determine the motion, and further said ( 244 Minn. 319 , 70 N. W. [2d] 131):
Alvin v. Johnson 71 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1955
Alvin v. Johnson 71 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1955
The existence of this *324 remedy was recently recognized by this court in Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 318 , 70 N. W. (2d) 127, 131 .