Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, 704 N.W.2d 759.

73 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (“[D]istrict courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.”).
State v. McKinney 840 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McKinney 840 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Janssen v. Best *432 & Flanagan, LLP, -04 (Minn.App.1989); review denied (Minn. Jan.
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
Though trial courts generally have “broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand,” they cannot act in a way that is “inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Centra Homes, LLC v. City of Norwood Young America 834 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Centra Homes, LLC v. City of Norwood Young America 834 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In other words, the judgment is final as to a party not served with the notice of appeal.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin 830 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2013
444 Lafayette, LLC v. County of Ramsey 830 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2013
444 Lafayette, LLC v. County of Ramsey 830 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2013
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin 830 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2013
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Marriage of Banal-Shepherd v. Shepherd 829 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Banal-Shepherd v. Shepherd 829 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (stating that appeal must be dismissed if order appealed from is indivisible such that it must be affirmed, modified, or reversed as to all parties to the action).
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[DJistrict courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Beuning Family LP v. County of Stearns 817 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 2012
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
But “district courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
U.S. Home Corp. v. Zimmerman Stucco & Plaster, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
U.S. Home Corp. v. Zimmerman Stucco & Plaster, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (stating that a judgment or appealable order becomes final if a timely appeal is not filed); review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006) (same).