Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust, 818 N.W.2d 495.

130 citing documents.

In re the Estate of: Stanley George Zych, Deceased, and In the Matter of the Revocable Trust Agreement … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
19 We review a district court’s award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion, -10 (Minn. 2012) , as well as an order of sanctions, see Collins v. Waconia Dodge, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Matter of the Revocable Trust Agreement of Avis V. Cordes under agreement dated February 12, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Guardianship of: Jack Earl Kestner, Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Susie Edana Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See In r e Stisser Grantor Trust
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, Minn. 2019
are clearly erroneous’ we must be ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (quoting In re Stisser Grantor Trust , ).
In re: the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of William Sczepanski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Patrick Takuanyi, PET Enterprises, et al v. Copart Inc., of Connecticut d/b/a Copart Dealer Services Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nor will we “interfere with a district court’s award of attorney fees absent an abuse of discretion.” -10 (Minn. 2012).
In re the Trust of the Charles W. J. Curry Trust Dated June 5, 1991, as amended, and … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re: the Trust of the Arnold G. A. Schauer and Yvonne B. Schauer Family Irrevocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor 5 Trust
William J. Benzick, et al v. Palm Properties LLC, Michael N. Palm Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Stisser Grantor Trust
David Anderson, et al v. David H. Koch, et al., New State Funding, LLC d/b/a Partners Funding, Mark … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
North Country Tire and Auto, Inc., et al v. David Leonard Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 52.01; see In re Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust , (applying the clear -error standard of review to a claim that a trust pay a personal representative compensation and attorney fees).
Andrew Brewer v. Gary Kidrowski, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the John P. Weitzel and Mary M. Weitzel 2007 Irrevocable Trust F/B/O Terese M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti v. Mace Faamasani Fonoti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “defer to the district court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witness [es].”
In re Rutherford D. Brosious Trust Agreement Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If a court is required to interpret a trust agreement, the court’s purpose “is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.” d 495, 502 (Minn. 2012) .
In re: Sidney A. Goodman Revocable Trust, U/A/D December 16, 1985 as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If a court is required to interpret a trust agreement, the court’s purpose “is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.” ; In re G.B.
Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mut. Ins. Co. 909 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mut. Ins. Co. 909 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
State v. Nelson , , 445 (Minn. 2014) (Dietzen, J. dissenting) (citing In re Stisser Grantor Trust , , 504 (Minn. 2012) ).
James Michael Olsen, Krisann Jeanne Olsen v. James Robert Greger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of the Irrevocable Trust Agreement for the New Jacqueline E. Johnson Trust Created By … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A court’ s purpose in interpreting a trust is to “ascertain a nd give effect to the grantor’s intent,” In re Stisser Grantor Trust , “ as expressed in the plain language of the will.”
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in the record.”
In re: The Dale A. Johnson Trust Under Agreement Dated August 10, 2006 as Amended and Restated on … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N Appellate courts “review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a written document, which in this case is the Trust.” In re Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust
Jeremiah Akinnola v. Southampton Apartments, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court “typically will not interfere with a district court’s award of attorney fees absent an abuse of discretion.” -10 (Minn. 2012).
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing 896 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2017
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing 896 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2017
A court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in the record.”
Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area v. Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, Inc. d/b/a Prairie Community Church of the … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See In re Pamela Andrea s Stisser Grantor Trust
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
Kelbro Co. v. Vinny's On the River, LLC 893 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kelbro Co. v. Vinny's On the River, LLC 893 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court “typically will not interfere with a district court’s award of attorney fees absent an abuse of discretion.” -10 (Minn. 2012).
In the Matter of: Trust Agreement of Don D. Henyan Created Under Agreement Dated May 1, 2006, as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Trust Agreement of Don D. Henyan Created Under Agreement Dated May 1, 2006, as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
See Staab, d at 72 ; -85 (Minn.2013) (concluding that a technical meaning was reasonable given the statutory context).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 884 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 884 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2016
(explaining that a “district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law”).
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To conclude that findings of fact are clearly erroneous, an appellate court must be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., … 875 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2016
Marjorie Gowan, et al v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan, et al v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A court’s interpretation of a will or trust should consider the document as a whole, not “isolated words.” d 495, 502 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 870 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2015
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 1 To answer the questions raised we will first review the relevant law regarding attorney-client fee disputes and quantum meruit principles, and then apply those principles to the issues before us.2 1 The procedural posture of this case is somewhat unusual.
Pro-T, LLC v. C O Brown Agency, Inc. d/b/a Lawrence-Bohmbach Insurance Agency, a “Trusted Source” Independent Insurance Agency, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Trust Agreement of D. Robert Sykes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pro-T, LLC v. C O Brown Agency, Inc. d/b/a Lawrence-Bohmbach Insurance Agency, a “Trusted Source” Independent Insurance Agency, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in the record.”