Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dunshee v. Douglas, 255 N.W.2d 42.

114 citing documents.

Shawn Paul Haren, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d at 165; No. A10-81, 2010 WL 4451281, at *1 (Minn. App. Nov.
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To establish plain error, Tarbuck relies on two civil decisions:
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Muehlhauser v. Erickson, 621 , 165 (Minn. App. 1984).
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doris A. Seward v. Taylor Florin-Clemants, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doris A. Seward v. Taylor Florin-Clemants, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the [district] court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
In re: Guardianship of Jill Lee Osufsen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re: Guardianship of Jill Lee Osufsen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Tabitha Ann Sanborn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Torchwood Props., () (continuances); d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002) (division of marital property); (spousal maintenance).
State of MN ex rel. Kandiyohi County Family Services, Plaintiff, o/b/o Kristi A. Barber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
28, 2006); see also Dunshee v. Douglas , (requiring a “clear abuse of discretion”); (applying the same standard of review to a decision made by a CSM that would apply if the decision had been made by a district court judge).
In re the Marriage of: John A. Laumann, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the [district] court and its ruling will 10 not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Thomas Purmort, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. H., R. W. G., and … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(in a dissolution case, “[t]he granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the [district] court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion”).
Samuel Zean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
District courts have wide discretion in scheduling deadlines, and granting continuances
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
Dunshee v. Douglas , , 45 (Minn. 1977).
In re the Marriage of: Yusuf Haji-Ismail Ali, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. C., S. L. W., Sr., C. J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Denial of a continuance “The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the [district] court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
In the Matter of Krista Ann Dickenson and o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, “[t]he granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the [district] court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion .” Dunshee v. Douglas , .
A17-0352 A17-0353 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Buckingham Trucking, Inc. v. Excel Manufacturing, Inc., and Excel Manufacturing, Inc., Third Party v. JWR, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Buckingham Trucking, Inc. v. Excel Manufacturing, Inc., and Excel Manufacturing, Inc., Third Party v. JWR, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(reviewing district court’s refusal to grant a continuance for clear abuse of discretion).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. H. and S. R., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. H. and S. R., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whether to grant a continuance is a ruling within the trial court’s discretion, which will not be reversed absent a showing of a clear abuse 5 of that discretion.” (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Catherine C. Chapman, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Catherine C. Chapman, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The granting of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the [district] court and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon 784 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon 784 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exch., Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Dunshee v. Douglas, *514
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
1184 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1090 (2000)
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
See, -46 (Minn.1994) (explaining that defense attorney made proffer as to the testimony of witnesses and court refused to hear testimony and permitted only argument from counsel); (holding that defense counsel’s memorandum summarizing expected testimony of a witness was a sufficient proffer).
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34 615 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by