Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Albertson v. Albertson, 67 N.W.2d 463.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The [district] court is in a far better position than we are to evaluate the various factors bearing on the credibility of the witnesses, such as their demeanor, disposition, and character.” n.4 (Minn. 2012) (applying Albertson’s observation in a criminal case).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2 (“Obviously the [district] court is in a far better position than we are to evaluate the various factors bearing on the credibility of the witnesses, such as their demeanor, disposition, and character.”); WL 2167467, at *2 (Minn. App. May 20, 2019) ( applying A
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our deference rests on the reality that “[o]bviously the trial court is in a far better position than we are to evaluate the various factors bearing on the credibility of the witnesses, such as their demeanor, disposition, and character.” see also Dereje, d at 726 (applying Albertson’s observation in an appeal challenging a criminal conviction).
Shawdy Kiani, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
As the supreme court has long established, “the trial court is in a far better position than we are to evaluate the various factors bearing on the credibility of the witnesses, such as their demeanor, disposition, and character.”
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
ostconviction court found that Bobo’s new evidence was "profoundly doubtful.” The dissent’s contention fails to acknowledge that the postconviction court’s conclusion is based on its determination that the new evidence — James's confession to the crime— lacks "trustworthiness.” But the credibility of a witness depends on his or her "demean- or, disposition, and character,” Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 215 , and therefore a postconviction court should not make witness credibility determ
200 Levee Drive Ass'n v. County of Scott 532 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1995
200 Levee Drive Ass'n v. County of Scott 532 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1995
LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372 , (citing Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 217 , ).
Regents of University of Minnesota v. Medical Inc. 405 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Regents of University of Minnesota v. Medical Inc. 405 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 217 , Disch v. Helary, Inc., pet.
Disch v. Helary, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Disch v. Helary, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nor will a new trial generally be granted on the basis of “[ejvidence which is merely contradictory, impeaching, or cumulative * * * except under the most extraordinary circumstances.” Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 217 , 67 *
Beckman v. Universal Enterprises, Inc. 367 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Beckman v. Universal Enterprises, Inc. 367 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212
Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, 255 Minn. 80
Senglaub v. Senglaub 224 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1974
Senglaub v. Senglaub 224 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1974
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , Cozik v. Cozik, 279 Minn. 91
Felsheim v. Felsheim 214 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1974
Felsheim v. Felsheim 214 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1974
1 , Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190 , Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , Cozik v. Cozik, 279 Minn. 91 , Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , Larkin v. Larkin, 261 Minn. 414 , Gannon v. Gannon, 258 Minn. 57 , and Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212
Cooper v. Cooper 214 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1974
Cooper v. Cooper 214 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1974
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , Cozik v. Cozik, 279 Minn. 91 , Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212
Lemieux v. Bishop 209 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1973
Lemieux v. Bishop 209 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1973
In Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 217 , however, we held that evidence “which is merely contradictory, impeaching, or cumulative cannot be made the basis of a new trial except under the most extraordinary circumstances.” We are convinced, on the basis of the record before us, that such circumstances were not presented to
Magnuson v. City of White Bear Lake 203 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1973
Magnuson v. City of White Bear Lake 203 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1973
The rule is discussed in Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 217 , where we said with respect to a divorce action: “* * * The evidence could, under some circumstances, constitute cruel and inhuman treatment warranting divorce and, as defendant points out, the court under Rule 59.01 of Rules of Civil Procedure was authorized to take additional testi
Schwerm v. Schwerm 175 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1970
Schwerm v. Schwerm 175 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1970
Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 215 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463, 466 .
Cloutier v. Cloutier 112 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1961
Distinguished Cloutier v. Cloutier 112 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1961
Plaintiff cites the following as authority for awarding the homestead to her: Kelly v. Kelly, 243 Minn. 114 , 66 N. W. (2d) 606 ; Albertson *332 v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463 ; Swanson v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 516 , 68 N. W. (2d) 418 .
Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
5 Also see, Bradley v. Norris, 67 Minn. 48 , ; LeVeaux v. Holt Motor Co. 181 Minn. 355 , ; Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463 ; Merek v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co. 200 Minn. 418 , .
Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
2 In Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463 , this court made it clear that the division of property in divorce proceedings is regulated solely by statute.
Simberg v. Simberg 94 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1959
Simberg v. Simberg 94 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1959
Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 229 Minn. 126 , 38 N. W. (2d) 154 ; Ellingson v. Ellingson, 227 Minn. 149 , 34 N. W. (2d) 356 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. EAH 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
State v. E. A. H. 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
State v. EAH 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
[11] Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , 67 N.W.
State v. E. A. H. 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463 ; Austin v. Rosecke, 240 Minn. 321 , 61 N. W. (2d) 240 ; Skog v. Pomush, 219 Minn. 322 , 17 N. W. (2d) 641 ; 14 Dunnell, Dig.
Swanson v. Swanson 68 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1955
Swanson v. Swanson 68 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1955
ion of the issues in the case, the amount of alimony or support money, if any, awarded in the judgment, the manner by which said property was acquired and the persons paying or supplying the consideration therefor, the charges or liens imposed thereon to secure payment of alimony or support money, and all the facts and circumstances of the case.” As we recently observed in Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 218 , 67 N. W. (2d) 463, 467 , with respect to the foregoing provisions, “the court m