Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kucera v. Kucera, 146 N.W.2d 181.

115 citing documents.

Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.” Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, see also Wright Elec., (stating that “this court cannot serve as the fact-finder”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Scott Andren v. James Woodhull Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott Andren v. James Woodhull Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 Generally, “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.” Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254 , (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 Although we undertake these calculations as part of our effort to discern the implications of the district court’s need calculations, we note that the court of appeals does not find facts, Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, and we direct that the district court on remand make its own appropriate factual findings and calculations as necessary to carry out its remand instructions.
Margaret Burrell Hall, successor in interest to Robert L. Hall, decedent v. Barbara Jeanne Hall f/k/a Barbara Jeanne … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Margaret Burrell Hall, successor in interest to Robert L. Hall, decedent v. Barbara Jeanne Hall f/k/a Barbara Jeanne … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, Wright Elec., review denied (Minn. Dec.
Linda K. Yonak v. Hawker Well Works, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Linda K. Yonak v. Hawker Well Works, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).
George Reilly, Trustee of the Nathan L. Bentson 1993 Irrevocable Trust v. Michael J. Antonello, and Michael J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
George Reilly, Trustee of the Nathan L. Bentson 1993 Irrevocable Trust v. Michael J. Antonello, and Michael J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Mario Vasquez, Relator v. Safe-Way Bus Co., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mario Vasquez, Relator v. Safe-Way Bus Co., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(holding that an appellate court should not address issue not decided by the district court, especially when the facts are in dispute); Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254 , (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.” Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(citing Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254 , ).
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wife relies on Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , to support her claim that husband should not receive any portion of the per capita payments that she received during their marriage.
Wright Electric, Inc. v. Ouellette 686 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Wright Electric, Inc. v. Ouellette 686 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254 , (stating “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”).
Scroggins v. Solchaga 552 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Scroggins v. Solchaga 552 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
52.01; Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of Pettit v. Pettit 472 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Pettit v. Pettit 472 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of Lossing v. Lossing 403 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lossing v. Lossing 403 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 385 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 385 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
10, 1985) (quoting Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 255 , ).
Pekarek v. Pekarek 384 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pekarek v. Pekarek 384 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55
Marriage of March v. Crockarell 354 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of March v. Crockarell 354 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“In a divorce action the trial court has the responsibility of finding the facts and resolving the conflicts in the evidence, and findings of fact based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252
Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by