Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Straus v. Straus, 94 N.W.2d 679.

38 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that “[d]eference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses”); (stating that “[c]onflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court”); -38 (Minn. App. 2016) (citing this aspect of Straus).
A22-1469 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Conflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court.”); (noting that “[t]he district court’s findings implicitly indicate that the district court found respondent’s testimon
In re the Estate of: Josephine Lucille Bicanich, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
20, 2009); (stating that “[c]onflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court”); - 38 (Minn. App. 2016) (citing this aspect of Straus).
In re the Marriage of: Samantha Magdalena Hansen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 52.01 (stating that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous”); (same); see also Straus v. Straus , (noting that appellate courts defer to a district court’s resolution of factual questions presented by conflicting affidavits); Hestekin v. Hestekin , (citing this aspect of Straus).
In the Marriage of: Deborah J. Schmitt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Straus v. Straus , ; DeRosier v. Utility Sys.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“Conflicts in the evidence .
In the Matter of Krista Ann Dickenson and o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cf. Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235, 680 (1959) (noting that appellate courts defer to a 6 district court’s resolution of factual questions presented by conflicting affidavits); (citing this aspect of Straus).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235, (stating “[c]onflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court”); see also DeRosier v. Util.
In re the Marria ge of: Marla Jean Knapp v. James Alan Knapp 883 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marria ge of: Marla Jean Knapp v. James Alan Knapp 883 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–32 (Minn. 2004) (“The discretion of the district court in opening a default judgment is particularly broad when the court’s decision is based upon an evaluation of conflicting affidavits.”); see also Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235, (“The general rule that upon appeal the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the prevailing party applies to evidence presented by affidavits submitted in support of and in opposition to motions.
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235, (“The general rule that upon appeal the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the prevailing party applies 7 to evidence presented by affidavits submitted in support of and in opposition to motions.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, e.g., Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235, (stating that conflicts in the evidence, even though presented in affidavits, are to be resolved by the district court).
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235
Lakeview Methodist Health Care Center v. Kaci Paradis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lakeview Methodist Health Care Center v. Kaci Paradis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235, (“Conflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court.”).
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235 , (“Conflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court.”).
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 244-45 , (partner’s institution of suit caused an immediate dissolution of partnership even though agreement expressly set term of partnership and prescribed 60-day notice period for termination of the partnership).
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235 , (appellate courts defer to trial court resolution of factual issues presented by conflicting affidavits).
Shirk v. Shirk 551 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Shirk v. Shirk 551 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
303.03(d) (absent "good cause” shown, motions in family court to be decided without hearing); Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235 , (fact questions presented by affidavit to be resolved by trial court).
Imperial Litho/Graphics v. M.J. Enterprises 730 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Brown v. Muetzel 358 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Brown v. Muetzel 358 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 294 Minn. 126 , Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234 , Seward v. Schrieber, 240 Minn. 489 , Owens v. J.L.
Anderson v. Sundstrom 241 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1976
Anderson v. Sundstrom 241 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1976
Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 235
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Frantz Klodt & Son, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1975
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Frantz Klodt & Son, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1975
In Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234, 240 , we said: “This court has repeatedly said that courts will proceed with great caution in granting an application for a receiver to take possession of property pendente lite; that such application is *247 addressed to the discretion of the trial court and will not be granted in a doub
Anderson v. Anderson 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
In Re Lakeland Development Corporation 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
Anderson v. Anderson 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
refrain from appointing receivers pendente lite when the result would virtually constitute dissolution, recognizing that authority to dissolve corporations is “wholly statutory” but that the court nevertheless has the general equity power to do so, just as for an individual, the statute being “a recognition, and not a limitation, of the customary equity jurisdiction.” See, also, Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234 , 94 N. W. (2d) 679 , as it relates to dissolution of partnerships.
In Re Lakeland Development Corporation 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
[14] See, also, Straus v. Straus, 254 Minn. 234 , , as it relates to dissolution of partnerships.