Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bauerly v. Bauerly, 765 N.W.2d 108.

27 citing documents.

MJ Property Holdings, LLC d/b/a Midwest Ethanol, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Misapplying the law is an abuse of discretion.”).
In re City of St. Paul’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Halverson, d at 766; – 11 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa , d 755, 758 (Minn. 1981)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. S., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Thomas W. Krabbenhoft, petitioner, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[it] does no t limit a district court’s inherent power to grant equitable relief.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-12 (Minn. App. 2009) (rema nding childcare overpayment i ssue back to the district court to weigh the equities rega rding mother’s financial hardsh ip and father’s desire for compensation and make appropriate findings).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that it is an abuse of discretion to misapply the law).
Shane Foss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And “[m]isapplying the law is an abuse of discretion.”
Mortenson v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety 918 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Mortenson v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety 918 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Bauerly v. Bauerly , , 110 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating court's "duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms" (quotation omitted) ).
In the Matter of the Application of J. M. M. o/b/o Minors for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Misapplying the law is an abuse of discretion.” d 108, 110 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Andrew James Carl Trupe v. Christin Marie Sohns Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Andrew James Carl Trupe v. Christin Marie Sohns Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (finding that equitable relief was applicable in compensating for overpayment of child support).
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court order regarding child support will be reversed only if the district court abused its broad discretion “by resolving the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on the record.”
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
II A district court order regarding child support will be reversed only when a district court abused its broad discretion “by resolving the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on the record.”
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lawrence Leiendecker, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, Appellants/Cross-Respondents (A12-1978), Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., Ruvelson & … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lawrence Leiendecker, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, Appellants/Cross-Respondents (A12-1978), Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., Ruvelson & … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This court’s “duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Robert Latham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Robert Latham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION This court’s “duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A CSM’s “duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by