Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Anderson, 225 N.W.2d 837.

45 citing documents.

Cathy Spann, et al., Minn. 2022
No. 1 of Chippewa Cnty., (expl aining that stipulated facts “take the place of evidence” and “that a stipulation cannot ordinarily be repudiated or withdrawn by one party without the consent of the other pa rty except by leave of the court for cause shown”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
As a matter of policy, stipulations are looked upon with f avor by courts because they “obviate the necessity of presenting evidence.” (discussing a stipulation in the context of a divorce proceeding).
Joseph Lee Selisker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, (a ffirming marital-dissolution judgment incorporating parties’ stipulation); State ex rel.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: William Lee Erickson. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court has wide discretion in vacating a stipulation, 5 and this court will not reverse its decision “absent a showing that the court acted so arbitrarily as to constitute an abuse of that discretion.” d 837, 840 (Minn. 1975).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
LaBelle’s Tr., d at 411; see Anderson v. Anderson , (affirming a district court’s enforcement of a stipulated contract provision agreed upon by the parties).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: James Allen Sleen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The mat ter of vacating a stipulation rests largely in the discretion of the [dis trict] court, and its action will not be reversed absent a showing that the court acted so arbitrarily as to constitute an abuse of that discretion.”
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
Anderson v. Anderson , 303 Minn. 26 , , 840 (1975).
Bridge Investments, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The decision to vacate a stipulation ‘rests largely in the discretion of the [district] court, and its action will not be reversed absent a showing that the court acted so arbitrarily as to constitute an abuse of that discretion.’” In re Commitment of Rannow , d 6 393, 396 (Minn. App. 2 008) (quoting Anderson v. Anderson , 303 Minn. 26, 32, ).
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 31, (rejecting appellant’s argument that the district court’s finding failed for lack of evidence because the claim “ignores the legal effect of a stipulation”).
Shauna Marie Krupicka v. Paul John Hassinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shauna Marie Krupicka v. Paul John Hassinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 31, (stating that “the effect of [a] stipulation is to take the place of evidence”).
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32, (stating that courts favor the use of stipulations in dissolution proceedings and that “[w]here the parties stipulate as to the facts, the effect of the stipulation is to take the place of evidence”).
In Re the Civil Commitment of Rannow 749 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Civil Commitment of Rannow 749 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The decision to vacate a stipulation “rests largely in the discretion of the [district] court, and its action will not be reversed absent a showing that the court acted so arbitrarily as to constitute an abuse of that discretion.” Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. 686 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 31
Marriage of Toughill v. Toughill 609 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Toughill v. Toughill 609 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk 561 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk 561 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1997
See Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26
Cadle v. Cadle 457 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Cadle v. Cadle 457 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26 , ).
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 449 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 449 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1989
(citing Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26 , ).
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 435 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 435 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(citing Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26 , ).
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson 399 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson 399 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Moreover, “a stipulation cannot ordinarily be repudiated or withdrawn by one party without consent of the other party except by leave of the court for cause shown.” Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 388 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 388 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Abendroth v. NAT. FARMERS U. PROP. & CAS. CO. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Abendroth v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Abendroth v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Abendroth v. NAT. FARMERS U. PROP. & CAS. CO. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Marriage of Burr v. Burr 353 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Burr v. Burr 353 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In addition, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held “that a stipulation cannot ordinarily be repudiated or withdrawn by one party without the consent of the other party except by leave of the court for cause shown.” Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32
Tomscak v. Tomscak 352 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tomscak v. Tomscak 352 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26
Marriage of John v. John 322 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1982
Marriage of John v. John 322 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1982
Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 31

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by