Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lewis v. Lewis, 572 N.W.2d 313.

18 citing documents.

Overruled In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A25-1854 A25-1856 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Lewis v. Lewis , (describing appellant’s motion for amended findings that did no more than repeat arguments previously raised to the district court as “incomplete, and, therefore, improper”) , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A proper motion to amend “must both identify the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain why the challenged findings are defective.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To move for amended findings, a movant must “both identify the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain why the challenged findings are defective.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
A24-0675 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A motion for amended findings is proper if it “both identif[es] the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain[s] why the challenged findings are defective.” Lewis 7 v. Lewis
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
So, while the motion “must both identify the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain why the challenged findings are defective,” (emphasis omitted), it may do that by reference to the record without a separate affidavit.
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Lewis v. Lewis , review denied (Minn. Feb.
Joel S. Rabbe, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Marriage of: Pamela J. Atkinson n/k/a Pamela J. Kraker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A motion for amended findings must “address the record evidence, explain why the record does not support the district court’s findings, and explain why the proposed findings are appropriate.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- 16 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Michael Charles Sasse, f/k/a Michael Charles Sasse Penkert v. Kathryn Elizabeth Penkert, f/k/a Delight Bernice Penkert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Charles Sasse, f/k/a Michael Charles Sasse Penkert v. Kathryn Elizabeth Penkert, f/k/a Delight Bernice Penkert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But respondent argues that appellant did not make a proper rule 52.02 motion because he did not “(1) address the record evidence, (2) explain why the record does not support the district court’s findings, and (3) explain why the proposed findings are appropriate,” review denied (Minn. Feb.
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Motion for Amended Findings A motion for amended findings “must both identify the alleged defect in the challenged findings and explain why the challenged findings are defective.” State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., , 178 & n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) ( review denied (Minn. Feb.
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(noting that the purpose of a motion to amend findings is to permit the district court to review its own exercise of discretion), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Feb.