Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Zander v. Zander, 720 N.W.2d 360.

70 citing documents.

A25-1854 A25-1856 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 59.01(d) (providing that a new trial may be granted for “[m]aterial evidence newly discovered, which with reasonable diligence could not have been found and produced at the trial”); (holding that when considering a motion for amended findings, a district court must apply the evidence submitted at trial and may not consider new evidence), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Zander v. Zander , rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Jonathan George Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Jonathan George Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Oluwafunbi Ige Olusina, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When evidence shows that parties to a dissolution are completely unable to communicate and cooperate, joint legal custody is not appropriate.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
A24-0991 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
v. Klingelhutz, ( rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that parents’ inability to “communicate and cooperate” is relevant in custody determinations), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Joseph Deidrick v. Clarissa Dozier Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Joseph Deidrick v. Clarissa Dozier Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Christine Marie Salvosa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
word “long-term” to mean that she and Alan “would share joint legal custody through [the child ’s] age of majority with the help of a long-term” PC and that, but for the PC, she “would have received an award of sole legal custody.” “A motion to amend findings must be based on the files, exhibits, and minutes of the court, not on evidence that is not a part of the record.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Athena 2004, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Klingelhutz, d at 754; rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
County of Clay, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Our review of the district court’ s custody decision is “limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by mak ing findin gs unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
Patricia Klug, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Wat Lao Sirithammaram, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When considering a motion for amended findings, a district court must apply the evidence as submitted during the trial of the case and may neither go outside the record, nor consider new evidence.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Nov.
A20-0820 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Zander v. Zander , review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Kristine Ann Spratt Hansen, n/k/a Kristine Ann Spratt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Zander v. Zander , review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Adetola Omolola Allen, n/k/a Adetola Omolola Abodunde, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court’s review of a district court’s custody decision is “limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Matter of: Awal Ismael Hussein, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our review of the district court’s custody deci sion is “limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Custody of: S. K. S. Christian Schut, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When considering a motion for amended findings, a district court must apply the evidence as submitted during the trial of the case and may neither go outside the record, nor consider new evidence.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re: the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of William Sczepanski. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Nov.
A18-1870 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Zander v. Zander , , 364 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“ W h e n considering a motion for amended findings, a district court mus t apply the evidence as submitted during the trial of the case and may neither go outsi de the record, nor consider new evidence.” Zander v. Zander , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Zander v. Zander , –65 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
A17-1687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In general, evidence is “newly discovered” only if it was ‘“in existence at the time of trial but not known to the party at that time.’” d 360, 365 (Minn. App. 2006) (quoting Swanson v. Williams , 303 Minn. 433, 436, ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
Moslais X. Vue, n/k/a Moslais Michele Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Barbara Ann Chadwick, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
motion [for modification].” A district court deciding a motion to amend findings under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 52.02 (2016) must consider only the evidence presented at the time of the original motion and “may neither go outside the record, nor consider new evidence.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: James Edward Cook, II, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 238, (quoting id.), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jerome M. Kraskey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Zander v. Zander , review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Walter Stance Davis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A motion to amend findings must be base d on the files, exhibits, and minutes of the court, not on evidence that is not a part of the record.” d 360, 364 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Vangsness, d at 474 (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”); see Elliott v. Mitchell, 311 Minn. 533, 535, (affirming findings, but noting that evidence might have supported another conclusion); (observing that, while the record could support a different decision, “this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the district court”), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review custody determinations to see “whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Tammy Marie Hackett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Appellate review of a custody determination is limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Joseph Leroy Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Joseph Leroy Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In our review of the district court’s custody order, we are “limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov.
In Re GUARDIANSHIP OF Jose Maria Chimborazo GUAMAN 879 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re GUARDIANSHIP OF Jose Maria Chimborazo GUAMAN 879 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Clarinda Low v. Travis Russell Yorek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Clarinda Low v. Travis Russell Yorek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that this court reviews a district court’s denial of a rule 52.02 motion “under an abuse-of-discretion standard”), review denied (Minn. Nov.