Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Toughill v. Toughill, 609 N.W.2d 634.

61 citing documents.

Estate of Rettke v. Rettke 696 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In doing so, the district court “ha[s] the authority to refuse to accept the terms of the stipulation in part or in toto.” Id,.; , 639 n. 1 (Minn.App.2000) (noting that “while a district court may reject all or part of a stipulation, generally, it cannot, by judicial fíat, impose conditions on the parties to which they did not stipulate and thereby deprive the parties of their ‘day in court’ ”).
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Shirk, d at 521-22 ; , 639 & n. 1.
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
3 in support of his proposition that the judgment may be considered void.
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
518.145] functionally overruled Tomscak and its progeny to the extent that those cases allowed vacation of stipulation-based dissolution judgments on grounds other than those listed in the statute.” (emphasis added).