Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk, 561 N.W.2d 519.

168 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Stipulated judgments, such as the Judgment and QDRO at issue in this case, are “accorded the sanctity of binding contracts,” and we therefore construe a stipulation using the ordinary rules of contract interpretation.
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see Anderson v. Anderson, 303 Minn. 26, 32, (stating that courts favor the use of stipulations in dissolution proceedings and that “[w]here the parties stipulate as to the facts, the effect of the stipulation is to take the place of evidence”).
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Courts favor stipulations in dissolution cases as a means of simplifying and expediting litigation, and to bring resolution to what frequently has become an acrimonious relationship between the parties.”
In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Stipulations in divorce proceedings are favored by courts “as a means of simplifying and expediting litigation” and “are therefore accorded the sanctity of binding contracts.”
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The use of stipulations in divorce proceedings has been approved by th[e supreme] court.”
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the present case involves a stipulated judgment, not a default judgment, and stipulations are “accorded the sanctity of binding contracts.”
In re the Matter of: Katherine Thistle Rivard v. Andrew Laurence Rivard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Katherine Thistle Rivard v. Andrew Laurence Rivard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Distinguished Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 60.02(e).2 n.3 (Minn. 1997).
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
has recognized the importance of finality in dissolution proceedings by setting forth specific circumstances that must be present for a party to be relieved of the terms of a judgment.”
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Michael Hudson v. Daniel Joseph Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Michael Hudson v. Daniel Joseph Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Stipulations in divorce proceedings are favored by courts “as a means of simplifying and expediting litigation” and “are therefore accorded the sanctity of binding contracts.”
Dahlin v. Kroening 784 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
with Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30 , -42 (1970).
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(holding that circumstances meeting requirements of section 518.145, subdivision 2, “must be demonstrated in order to obtain relief from a judgment and decree of dissolution”).
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
Gatfield v. Gatfield 682 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gatfield v. Gatfield 682 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
When parties agree to dissolve their marriage under certain terms, that stipulation is “accorded the sanctity of [a] binding contract.”
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004