DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235.

134 citing documents.

  • In re the Marriage of: Mary Ann Fenlon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Husband’s argument faces a threshold barrier: “[o]n appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Marcia A. Hammond, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • Michael Nassif, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    See Becker v. Mayo Found ., 215 (Minn. 2007) (“An offer of proof is a prerequisite to motions for a new trial and appeals based on exclusion of evidence.”); review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (sta ting that a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when she did not submit the evidence that would allow it to do so), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • Erin Elisabeth Dancour, n/k/a Erin Elisabeth Meyers, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , 3 (Minn. App. 2003) (“[A] party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”), review denied (Minn.
  • In re the Marriage of: Edith Ponciano, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (stating that “[o]n appeal a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question”)
  • In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “On appeal, a part y cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in h[is] favor when one of th e reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the ev idence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Custody of E. J. B., Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Erika Lynn Huerta, nka Erika Lynn Mazzitello, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    – 42 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Larry Allan Keeler, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (“On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the dis trict court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” ), review deni
  • In re the Marriage of: Heidi Renae Karn-Kirwin, n/k/a Heidi Renae Karn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (stating that a reviewing court considers only issues presented to and considered by the district court); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [ his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is becaus e that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question”), review
  • In re the Marriage of: Kristy Ann Ryan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    11 (“On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”).
  • Herbert A. Igbanugo, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure” to rule in th e party’s favor “when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question”), re
  • In re the Custody of: S. K. S. Christian Schut, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See Tonka Tours, d 723, 728 (Minn. 1985) (stating that whether a party acted in good faith is, essentially, a credibility determination); (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); (stating that “[q]uestions of .
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: V. N. M. and C. W. N., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “[A] party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow 10 the district court to fully address the question.” d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    ( “[A] party cannot complain about a district court ’s failure to rule in [the party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”), review deni
  • In re the Matter of: Dennis J. Arvig, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    2 (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [that party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question”), r
  • In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (“[A] party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”) , review denied ( M i
  • Gabrielle Marie Geraci, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    ” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • Patrick Takuanyi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (“[A] party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [the party ’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provid e the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”), review den
  • Eric Joseph Vacko, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (noting that a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in the party’s favor when the party failed to provide evidence that would have allowed the district court to fully address the question), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (stating that a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when she did not submit the evidence that would allow it to do so), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Amy Marie Causton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson, f/k/a Dawn Angela Pedri, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    ( “On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [his] favor when one of the reasons it did 17 not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district cour t to fully address the question .”), revie
  • In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Ann Gronvall, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    On appeal, “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [ his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • County of Anoka, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “[A] party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [the party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , , review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Michele Lura Honderich-Flannery, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (citing Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In the Matter of Krista Ann Dickenson and o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Torchwood, d at 419-20; (“On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”), review denied
  • A17-0300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Cf. 9 (concluding that the district court’s disposition on the propriety of income was not clearly erroneous because the appellant lacked credible evidence to support her claim) , review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • James Michael Olsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    5(b); see also Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , n.5 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that “may” is permissive), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Matter of: Peter H. Stier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    8 First, on appeal, “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • County of Ramsey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Id.; Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , (M inn.
  • In re the Marriage of: Elio Fumagalli, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , (“A party cannot complain about a district court’ s failure to rule in [the pa rty’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”), review denied
  • In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [that party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evi dence that would allow the district court to fully address the question”).
  • In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    ” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    See Eisenschenk 4 v. Eisenschenk, (“A party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [the party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”), review denied (
  • In re the Marriage of: Todd James Lindsey v. Shirley June Lindsey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In re the Marriage of: Todd James Lindsey v. Shirley June Lindsey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (remanding a parenting schedule when the district court did not adequately explain why it imposed that schedule); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk (reversing and remanding the effective date of a child-support obligation when the district court did not adequately explain its reason for not applying the generally applicable rule on the subject), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • Sarah Elizabeth LeBlanc v. Alonzo Marell Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Sarah Elizabeth LeBlanc v. Alonzo Marell Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    5(a); see also Kush, d at 843; n.5 (Minn. App. 2003) 4 (stating that “may” is permissive), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [that party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See, e.g., Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 192, (“‘Unreasonable and unfair’ are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burden of proof more than cursory.”); (stating that a party who does not submit evidence to allow the district court to fully address a question may not complain that the court failed to rule in that party’s favor), review denied (Minn. Nov.