Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Davidner v. Davidner, 232 N.W.2d 5.

30 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We will not reverse a district court’s findings unless they are “palpably contrary to the evidence.”
In re the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Fahria Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Fahria Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Caselaw predating the Bogen opinion provides that “divorce jurisdiction depends on domicile,” that “domicile” means “the union of residence and intention,” and that “residence without intention, or intention without residence, is of no avail.”
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: G. R., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493, (stating “a finding of proper domicile to confer jurisdiction for commencement of a divorce action will not be reversed unless it is palpably contrary to the evidence”).
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Tammy Marie Salisbury v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tammy Marie Salisbury v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
confer jurisdiction on the court.” Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Quality Council, Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493 , Huhn v. Foley Bros., 221 Minn. 279, 286 , *725
Mauer v. Commissioner of Revenue 829 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2013
Mauer v. Commissioner of Revenue 829 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2013
(quoting Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 494 , ).
Sanchez v. Commissioner of Revenue 770 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2009
Sanchez v. Commissioner of Revenue 770 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2009
upon the purpose and intent of the change.” Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 494
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
Carlson v. Chermak 639 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Carlson v. Chermak 639 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493 , (appellate court’s duty to determine jurisdiction sua sponte); cf. Chapman v. Dorsey 230 Minn. 279, 288 , (appeals decided on the merits that do not address issue of appellate jurisdiction are not precedential authority on jurisdiction).
Polk County Social Services ex rel. Hagen v. Clinton 459 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Polk County Social Services ex rel. Hagen v. Clinton 459 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
Marriage of Berc v. Berc 407 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Berc v. Berc 407 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
Marriage of Jones v. Jones 402 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jones v. Jones 402 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A finding that the residence requirement has been satisfied will be reversed only if it is “palpably contrary to the evidence.” See Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
Marriage of Ferraro v. Ferraro 364 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Ferraro v. Ferraro 364 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493
Rieman v. Joubert 361 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rieman v. Joubert 361 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Additionally, “[t]he parties cannot by their actions or agreement confer jurisdiction on the court, and an appellate court will determine the jurisdictional facts on its own motion even if neither party has raised the issue.” Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493 , see Wyman v. *912 Wyman, 297 Minn. 465