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: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of: Ronald Jeffrey Smith v. Brian Robert Kessen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Ronald Jeffrey Smith v. Brian Robert Kessen 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: 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Scott Michael Gold, petitioner, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Emily Kay Stilwagon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Anderson v. Anderson , rev. granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Maureen A. Chevalier, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Anderson v. Anderson , 13 (Minn. App. 2017), review granted (Minn. Aug.
Sokkhan Ka, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
a motion constitutes a denial of that motion.” , review granted (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl, petitioner, Respondent, 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: 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.