Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hertz v. Hertz, 229 N.W.2d 42.

170 citing documents.

Marriage of Sweere v. Gilbert-Sweere 534 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage Of: Wopata v. Wopata 498 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage Of: Wopata v. Wopata 498 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp. 481 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp. 481 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976); Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , (valuation of property is a finding of fact which will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole).
Peller v. Harris 464 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Peller v. Harris 464 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Disch v. Helary, Inc., (citing Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 146 , Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 526, 530 , 11 N.W.
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 146
Marriage of Burwell v. Burwell 438 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Dick v. Dick 438 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Burwell v. Burwell 438 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Campion, d at 6 (citing Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , ).
Marriage of Dick v. Dick 438 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(citing Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , ); (“[I]n Minnesota the owner of property is presumptively knowledgable about its value.”) DECISION We affirm the trial court’s valuation of the homestead, but reverse and remand for further findings on the issues of permanent
Bosshart v. Commissioner of Public Safety 427 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bosshart v. Commissioner of Public Safety 427 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 146
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 147-48
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 411 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 411 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
52.01; Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Lenz v. Lenz 409 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lenz v. Lenz 409 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Nemmers v. Nemmers 409 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Letsch v. Letsch 409 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Letsch v. Letsch 409 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , Minn.R.
Marriage of Nemmers v. Nemmers 409 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , (citations omitted).
Marriage of Roth v. Roth 406 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Roth v. Roth 406 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
App.1984) (citing Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 147-48 , ).
Marriage of Worden v. Worden 403 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Worden v. Worden 403 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Laumann v. Laumann 400 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Laumann v. Laumann 400 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Valuation is necessarily an approximation, and “it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.” Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Haasken v. Haasken 396 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Haasken v. Haasken 396 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[Valuation is necessarily an approximation in many cases, and it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.”
Maher v. Maher 393 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Maher v. Maher 393 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
for rev. denied (Minn. July 11, 1985) (citing Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , ).
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 392 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 392 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , (citations omitted).
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a trial court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact, which “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Nash v. Nash 388 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Nash v. Nash 388 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , (the trial court’s valuation should be sustained if it falls within “the limits of credible estimates made by competent witnesses”).
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144
Marriage of Kenville v. Kenville 385 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kenville v. Kenville 385 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that: Assigning a specific value to an asset is a finding of fact; disputes as to asset valuation are to be addressed to the trier of fact, and conflicts are to be resolved in that court.
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by