Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 208.

121 citing documents.

Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
However, “tax considerations are not controlling.”
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
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
Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“Exactitude is not required of the trial court in the valuation of assets; * * it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.” (cites omitted).
Thedens v. Thedens 400 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thedens v. Thedens 400 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 379 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1986
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 379 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1986
Therefore, the money Carl received from his former employer was “property * * * acquired by the parties, or either one of them, * * * at any time during the existence of the marriage.” Id.; (property acquired by a married couple or by either of them after the marriage dissolution petition is filed is subject to disposition by the trial court in a property division).
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Exactitude is not required of the trial court in the valuation of assets * * *; it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.” ( (Minn.Ct.App.
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Tailor-Navsaria v. Tailor-Navsaria 374 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Tailor-Navsaria v. Tailor-Navsaria 374 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Exactitude is not required of the trial court in the valuation of assets * * *; it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.” ().
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 375 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 375 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Haukebo v. Haukebo 369 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Haukebo v. Haukebo 369 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Berthiaume v. Berthiaume 368 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Berthiaume v. Berthiaume 368 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-93 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) ().
Marriage of Quade v. Quade 367 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 367 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Quade v. Quade 367 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 367 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Exactitude is not required of the trial court in the valuation of assets; * * * it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.” (cites omitted).
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Olness v. Olness 364 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Olness v. Olness 364 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In valuing assets, “it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures.”
Marriage of Linderman v. Linderman 364 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Linderman v. Linderman 364 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Pekarek v. Pekarek 362 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1985