Cited by

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting “that courts and parties often use concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction’ imprecisely to refer to, among other things, nonjurisdictional claims-processing rules or nonjurisdictional limits on a court’s authority to address a question”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

y maintenance obligation.” The district court cited four cases that support respondent’s argument: (“Once maintenance payments end, the [district] court is without jurisdiction to modify maintenance.”); (“[T]here cannot be modification of something that has ceased to exist.”); d 285, 288-289 (Minn. App. 2007) (citing Loo and Eckert and holding that “the district court has no authority to address a motion to modify maintenance that is made after the maintenance obligation expires”), rev. denied (

of Managers of Bois de Sioux Watershed Dist., n.2 (Minn. App. 2012) (same); n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (same), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (explaining that “parties often use concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction ’ improperly to refer to, among other things, nonjurisdictional .

But see Moore v. Moore , n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that parties and courts often use words and concepts associated with jurisdiction imprecisely and declining to address whether subject matter jurisdiction was actually at issue in the spousal maintenance modification dispute ), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

See Moore v. Moore , review denied (Minn. Sept.

& n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that “courts and parties often use concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction’ imprecisely to refer to, among other things, nonjurisdictional claims -processing rules or nonjurisdictional limits on a court’s authority to address a question”), review denied (Minn. Sept.

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that “[c]ourts and parties often use concep ts and language associated with ‘jurisdict ion’ imprecisely to refer to, among other things .

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that “courts and parties often use concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction’ imprecisely to refer to, among other things, nonjurisdictional claims -processing rules or nonjurisdictional limits on a court’s authority to address a qu estion”), review denied (Minn. Sept.

“[C]ourts and parties often us e concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction’ imprecisely to refer to, am ong other things, nonjurisdictional claims- processing rules or nonjurisdictional limits on a court’s authority to address a question.” Moore v. Moore , n. 1 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.

Cf. Moore v. Moore , n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (“ Courts and parties of ten use concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction’ impr ecisely to refer to, among other things .

289 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.

20, 2015); Citizens for Rule of Law, d at 173; n.1 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.

(stating that “once a final maintenance payment has been made, there is no maintenance obligation to modify”), review denied (Minn. Sept.

n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that courts and parties often use concepts and language associated with “jurisdiction” imprecisely to refer to nonjurisdictional limits on a court’s authority to address a question), review denied (Minn. Sept.

It is also an issue that will almost certainly arise again in the context urged by appellant here: as a -89 & n.2 (Minn. App. 2007) (ruling that, absent a reservation of authority over maintenance, a maintenance obligation expires and a district court loses authority to modify maintenance when the last payment is made on the schedule setting that obligation, but declining to address when a district court loses a

287 n. 1 (Minn.App.2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.

287 n. 1 (Minn.App.2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.