Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Castonguay v. Castonguay, 306 N.W.2d 143.

48 citing documents.

Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn 8 N.W.3d 633 Minn. 2024
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn 8 N.W.3d 633 Minn. 2024
4 In support of its conclusion that the consent-to-transfer provision does not apply to an intestate transfer
Jeffrey D. Kuhn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
of corporate stock sales, we note that the supreme court has held that anti- transfer clauses like the one at issue here do not preclude involuntary transfers or transfers by operation of law: “[r]estrictions on the sale of corporate stock apply only to voluntary sales, and not to transfers by operation of law, in the absence of a specific provision to that effect.” - 45 (Minn. 1981) (holding that a provision that “[n]o holder of shares of stock in this corporation shall sell, assign, transfer,
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Castonguay v. Castonguay , 15 (stating that if a valuation h as an acceptable basis in fact, this court must affirm the district court).
Roof Depot, Inc. v. Ohman 638 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Roof Depot, Inc. v. Ohman 638 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the validity of a stock-transfer restriction in the context of a property award in a marital-dissolution decree.
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 449 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 449 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1989
Cas *165 -47 (Minn.1981)
Marriage of Davey v. Davey 415 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Davey v. Davey 415 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-427
Marriage of Amundson v. Amundson 414 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Amundson v. Amundson 414 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 412 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 412 N.W.2d 773 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
We have stated: The trial court’s method of valuation “is to be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.” citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418
Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel 400 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel 400 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
( Senglaub v. Senglaub, 302 Minn. 547, 548 , -16 (1974)).
Marriage of Mitterhauser v. Mitterhauser 399 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mitterhauser v. Mitterhauser 399 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dicks v. Dicks 380 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dicks v. Dicks 380 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(trial court’s decision must be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though the reviewing court might have taken a different approach).
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 379 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1986
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 379 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1986
(affirming the Bollenbach rule).
Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen 374 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen 374 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cronin v. Cronin 372 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cronin v. Cronin 372 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Lowe v. Lowe 372 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Lowe v. Lowe 372 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kostelnik v. Kostelnik 367 N.W.2d 665 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kostelnik v. Kostelnik 367 N.W.2d 665 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“The trial court’s method of valuation ‘is to be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.’ ” (quoting Castonguay v. *670 Castonguay
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
Marriage of Montgomery v. Montgomery 358 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Montgomery v. Montgomery 358 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The trial court’s decision will be affirmed “if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.”
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 356 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 356 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The trial court’s method of valuation “is to be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.” citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418
Marriage of Ebnet v. Ebnet 347 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Ebnet v. Ebnet 347 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 758 (Minn.1984); Senglaub v. Senglaub, 302 Minn. 547, 548 , -516 (1974).
Marriage of Wilson v. Wilson 348 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Wilson v. Wilson 348 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Senglaub v. Senglaub, 302 Minn. 547, 548 , -516 (1974)
Marriage of Servin v. Servin 345 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1984
Marriage of Servin v. Servin 345 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1984
Senglaub v. Senglaub, 302 Minn. 547, 548 , -516 (1974)
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 343 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 343 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by