Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Johnson, 902 N.W.2d 79.

18 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Jeneen Marie Molldrem v. Kevin Daniel Molldrem Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Following final disposition of the parties’ marital property in a dissolution judgment, a district court has discretion to issue orders to clarify, implement, or enforce the terms of the judgment, but it generally may not modify the property settlement, d 272, 275 (Minn. App. 1999).
In re the Marriage of: Xiaoyan Sun v. Qiang Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Once the time to appeal a decision of the district court expires, that ruling is final, even if it is wrong.” (citing Dieseth v. Calder Mfg.
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” (same).
In the Matter of Kathryn Marie Larson On Behalf of Minor Child v. Keith Norman Marohn Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the [district] court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (citing this aspect of Dieseth).
In the Matter of the Mary Kristen Francis Revocable Trust Agreement Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2d 100, 103 (Minn. 1966) (stating that “[e]ven though decision of the [district] court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order, it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (citing this aspect of Dieseth).
City of Minneapolis v. Leo A. Daly Company, and Leo A. Daly Company, vs. Ice Builders, Inc., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Regents reflects the long-held principle that “[o]nce the time to appeal a decision of the district court expires, that ruling is final, even if it is wrong.” (citing Dieseth v. Calder Mfg.
In re the Supervised Estate of: Delbert W Waara, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (citing this aspect of Dieseth).
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Winesett v. Heather Winesett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner v. Margaret Eleanor Ortner Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Warren Rupp v. Elisabeth Hastings Felten, f/k/a Elisabeth Hastings Felten Rupp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Proactive Imaging, LLC d/b/a Minnesota Radiology, Dr. Gail Tasch, et al v. Timothy J. Peters, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And we further note that “a district c ourt abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, 6 or reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”
In Re the Marriage of: Donald M. Charlson (A18-1058) (A18-1065) v. Angela K. Charlson (A18-1058) (A18-1065) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Stinchfield Giebenhain v. Michael Edwin Giebenhain Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Keith Jonathan Hempel, II, Decedent, Tobin Hempel and Joshua D. Krsnak, personal representatives … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A distric t court abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or resolving the matter in a manner that 8 is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” Johnson v. Johnson
In the Matter of: Kari Dale Hickey v. Dirk Anthony Hummel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Dieseth v. Calder Mfg.
In re the Marriage of: Jill Kathleen Janssen v. Kevin Eric Janssen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Johnson v. Johnson , (noting that “[o]nce the time to appeal a decision of the district court expires, that ruling is fina l, even if it is wrong”) (citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch v. Andrew Baertsch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
–86 (Minn. App. 2017) (discussing interpretation of “hold harmless ” provision in dissolution judgment).