Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Starr v. Starr, 251 N.W.2d 341.

66 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(applying the general rule for construction of contracts to dissolution decrees).
In re the Marriage of: Jason Robert Carter, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Linsey Lee Milbrandt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Maureen A. Chevalier, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Scott Jovaag, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Jane Swenson Amdal, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 341, 342 (Minn. 1977) (examining stipulated dissolution and decree provision).
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Walter Eidem, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When interpreting a provision in a stipulated judgment, we apply general contract principles, including that “where the language employed by the parties is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.”
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63, (applying general rule for construction of contracts to dissolution).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Durand Dornquast, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562 -63, (applying general rule for construction of contracts to dissolution).
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the language used “is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.” Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562– 63
Ann Marie Hall, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562 -63
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]here the language employed by the parties is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.” Starr 14 v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 563
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ann Summers v. Jonathon Roger Summers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ann Summers v. Jonathon Roger Summers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
is that where the language employed by the parties is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.” Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
Carleen Kaye Theno, n/k/a Carleen Kaye Starkovich v. John Marvin Theno Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carleen Kaye Theno, n/k/a Carleen Kaye Starkovich v. John Marvin Theno Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The judgment and decree addresses the division of respondent’s retirement benefits, and the plain language states the court “shall utilize the formula provided in Janssen vs. Janssen.” Where, as it is here, “the language employed by the parties is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.”2 Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561 562- 63
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Diane Drays Hill v. Michael C. Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Diane Drays Hill v. Michael C. Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Lori Austin Sager v. Rene Gerold Sager Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Lori Austin Sager v. Rene Gerold Sager Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is that where the language employed by the parties is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.” Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562–63
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is that where the language employed by the parties is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction.” Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 563
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63 , (stating that when terms in a dissolution judgment are unambiguous, they must be construed according to their plain meaning).
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63 , (court cannot construe stipulation language that is plain and unambiguous); Telex Corp. v. Data Prods.
In Re Estate of Rock 612 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re Estate of Rock 612 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63 , see also Anderson, d at 3-4 (applying rules of contract construction to interpretation of stipulated provision in dissolution judgment).
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 306 Minn. 352, 356 , (construing contract according to plain and ordinary meaning); see also Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63 , (applying general rules of contract construction to interpretation of divorce stipulation).
In Re Estate of Aspenson 470 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re Estate of Aspenson 470 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Starr v. Starr, 312 Minn. 561, 562-63

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by