Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Leininger v. Anderson, 255 N.W.2d 22.

29 citing documents.

In re the Irrevocable Special Needs Trust of Touger Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(noting that an appellant has a “heavy” burden “to show that, based on the record [appellant] has provided, the [district] court was clearly erroneous in its factual findings, or mistaken in its legal conclusions”).
Mark Lukens, et al v. Snowman Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that the appellant has a “heavy” burden to show that the district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous or that its legal conclusions are unsupported).
Scott Trebelhorn, d/b/a Trebelhorn & Associates v. Abhishek Agrawal, RTS Financial Group, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth L. Kuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth L. Kuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
River City Mortgage Corp. v. Baldus 695 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens 463 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens 463 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
for rev. denied (Minn. April 29, *306 1987) (-27 (Minn.1977)).
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nunnelee v. Schuna 431 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Nunnelee v. Schuna 431 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
for rev. denied (Minn. April 29, 1987) (-27 (Minn.1977)).
Marriage of Blattner v. Blattner 411 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Blattner v. Blattner 411 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lake Mille Lacs Investment, Inc. v. Payne 401 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lake Mille Lacs Investment, Inc. v. Payne 401 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Richards Asphalt Co. v. Bunge Corp. 399 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Richards Asphalt Co. v. Bunge Corp. 399 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bloomington Electric Co. v. Freeman's, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bloomington Electric Co. v. Freeman's, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Larson v. County of St. Louis 366 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. County of St. Louis 366 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Medinvest Co. v. Methodist Hospital 359 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Medinvest Co. v. Methodist Hospital 359 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bohm v. Independent School Dist. No. 283 358 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bohm v. Independent School Dist. No. 283 358 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State Bank of Brooten v. American National Bank of Little Falls 266 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1978
State Bank of Brooten v. American National Bank of Little Falls 266 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1978
In the recent case of Leininger v. Anderson, Minn., we stated that the application of cashier’s checks to satisfy certain obligations constituted “value” within the meaning of § 336.3-303(b).