Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Palmi v. Palmi, 140 N.W.2d 77.
-
In re the Matter of:
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We therefore conclude that Spera’s interpretation is unreasonable because it departs from established 8 principles of contract construction that require provisions to be harmonized and interpreted “in such a way as to give meaning to all of its provisions.” Brookfield Trade Ctr., (“[I]n arriving at the meaning of a judgment or decree, the judgment as a whole should be considered in interpreting any particular clause or sentence therein[.]”); (applying the rules of contract construction to a stip
-
A23-1981
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Construction of its own decree by the trial court must be given great weight in determining the intent of the trial court.”).
-
In re the Marriage of:
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Interpretation of an ambiguous stipulated order is a question of fact, see Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (contract), and “[w]e defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order,” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“Construction of its own decree by the trial court must be given great weight in determining the intent of the trial court.”).
-
In re the Marriage of:
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
see also Staffing Sp ecifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Mgmt.
- Jerrod Matthew Brown v. Amanda Marie Spoden, n/k/a Amanda Vinkemeier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Jerrod Matthew Brown v. Amanda Marie Spoden, n/k/a Amanda Vinkemeier
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 102-03
- 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
“Divorce decrees should be given that interpretation which will render them reasonable, effective, and conclusive and which will make them harmonize with facts and law of the case.” Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 104
- Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson
642 N.W.2d 441
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
And “[o]n appeal, the trial court’s construction of its own decree has great weight.” Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 104
- Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
Marriage of Auer v. Scott
494 N.W.2d 54
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 104 , Head v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
- Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 449 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
449 N.W.2d 449
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 103
- Marriage of Perrington v. Perrington 447 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1989
-
Marriage of Perrington v. Perrington
447 N.W.2d 886
Minn. 1989
See Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97
- Marriage of Stich v. Stich 435 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Marriage of Stich v. Stich
435 N.W.2d 848
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 104 , d *852 77, 82 (1966)
- 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 Stewart v. Stewart
400 N.W.2d 157
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 104
- 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
“Divorce decrees should be given that interpretation which will render them reasonable, effective, and conclusive.” Palmer v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 104
- Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1975
-
Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc.
235 N.W.2d 848
Minn. 1975
The court noted that “in defending the action Decker was defending only charges based upon Jackson’s original breach of warranty.” 273 Minn. 97 , .
- Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier 231 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 1975
-
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier
231 N.W.2d 71
Minn. 1975
Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97
- In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
-
In Re LaBelle's Trust
223 N.W.2d 400
Minn. 1974
See, Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97 , Cloutier v. *111 Cloutier, 261 Minn. 324 , Sivertsen v. Sivertsen, 198 Minn. 207