Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson, 897 N.W.2d 828.

17 citing documents.

Explained In re the Marriage of: Mark S. Steinmetz v. Darlene D. Steinmetz Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of: Ronald Jeffrey Smith v. Brian Robert Kessen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Ronald Jeffrey Smith v. Brian Robert Kessen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
developed by the appellate courts to effectuate the finality of appellate decisions” and “is not normally applied by a trial court to its own prior decisions.” n.1 (Minn. 1994) (citation omitted); (citing Loo in declining to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine to the district court’s prior ruling), rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Beverly Denise Kossack v. Kenneth Joseph Kossack Minn. Ct. App. 2023
14 (Minn. App. 2017) (explaining that “a district court’s failure to specifically address or reserve a motion constitutes a denial of that motion” (emphasis added)), rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Sneha Singh v. Ashok Kumar Goyal Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Scott Michael Gold v. Chelsey Dodge Frawley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We treat the district court’s silence as a 7 denial of Frawley’s request, (“[A] district court’s failure to specifically address or reserve a motion constitutes a denial of that motion.”), rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Jeannine Colleen Scott Salchow, n/k/a Jeannine Colleen Farnsworth v. Kenneth Joe Salchow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Emily Kay Stilwagon v. Shawn Bradford Stilwagon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Anderson v. Anderson , rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Maureen A. Chevalier v. Mark K. Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha v. Deepak Kademani Minn. Ct. App. 2021
6 Neither party challenges whether Minn. Stat. § 518.14 provides a substantive basis for an award of conduct-based attorney fees , given the supreme court’s (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Mary Ann Fenlon v. Steven Robert Fenlon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Knewtson, n/k/a Nicole Marie Campbell v. Adam Christopher Knewtson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Paul Matthias Hobday v. Mary Kay Hobday Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Anderson v. Anderson , 13 (Minn. App. 2017), review granted (Minn. Aug.
Sokkhan Ka v. Mai Yia Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
a motion constitutes a denial of that motion.” , review granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl v. Doreen Strosahl Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[G]enerally, a district court’ s failure to specifically address or reserve a motion constitutes a denial of that motion .” Anderson v. Anderson , review granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Lakmini Yamuna Herath v. Susantha Herath Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cf. Anderson v. Anderson , order at 3 (Minn. Aug.