Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644.

71 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Jacob Anthony Pulsifer v. Julie Ann Pulsifer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.” (“[Appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”).
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate 2 courts “independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.” d 644, 649 (Minn. 2008).
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Ross Wickenhauser v. Denise Esther Wickenhauser, n/k/a Denise Esther Peterson, (A14-0417), and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Ross Wickenhauser v. Denise Esther Wickenhauser, n/k/a Denise Esther Peterson, (A14-0417), and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Trovato v. Vincent Henry Trovato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Trovato v. Vincent Henry Trovato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, if [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, [it] may find the [district] court’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” (quotation and citation omitted); (stating that “[appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”).
In re the Marriage of: Lynn Desiree Wallace v. Christopher Michael Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Lynn Desiree Wallace v. Christopher Michael Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM 852 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2014
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM 852 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2014
v. U-Haul Co. of Minn., 17 (“[W]e reverse and remand to the court of appeals to consider the property owners’ other claims.”); (“The court of appeals did not address these arguments .
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
aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“All property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is presumptively marital, but a spouse may defeat the presumption by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the property acquired is non-marital.” -50 (Minn.2008) (citing MinmStat.
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
ct court, whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether those findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment.” ( Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ), aff'd in part, rev’d in part
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
An appellate court “independently review[s] the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”