Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Marriage of DuBois v. DuBois, 335 N.W.2d 503.

143 citing documents.

In re the marriage of: Lori Ann Saari v. Mark Steven Saari Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the marriage of: Lori Ann Saari v. Mark Steven Saari Minn. Ct. App. 2025
m “present value” is a term of art. The “‘[p]resent value’ [of future payments] discounts an award [of funds to be received in the future] to that amount which, if presently received, could be invested in order to yield the future sum”; it is the amount “which a person would take now in return for giving up the right to receive an unknown number of monthly checks in the future.” (alteration in original); (quoting these aspects of DuBois).
In re the Marriage of: Fadumo Salad, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Robert Joseph Hoolihan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When a district court’s spousal-maintenance award “has a reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle, this court will and must affirm.”
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Division of Wife’s Pension “The valuation and division of pension rights is generally a matter for the trial court’s discretion.”
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The valuation and division of pension rights is generally a matter for the [district] court’s discretion.”
Carleen Kaye Theno, n/k/a Carleen Kaye Starkovich v. John Marvin Theno Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carleen Kaye Theno, n/k/a Carleen Kaye Starkovich v. John Marvin Theno Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(defining “present value” as “the sum which a person would take now in return for giving up the right to receive an unknown number of monthly checks in the future”) (emphasis omitted).
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The reviewing court will not disturb the district court’s maintenance award if it has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle.” (citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426 , ).
Marriage of Broas v. Broas 472 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Broas v. Broas 472 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
On review, this court must affirm if the determination “has a reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle.”
Marriage of Reinke v. Reinke 464 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Reinke v. Reinke 464 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The award must not be disturbed if it has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle.” (citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).
Polk County Social Services ex rel. Hagen v. Clinton 459 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Polk County Social Services ex rel. Hagen v. Clinton 459 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of March v. March 435 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of March v. March 435 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Daily v. Daily 433 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Daily v. Daily 433 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Additionally, if the child support determination has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and in principle, [an appellate court] will and must affirm.” (citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , ).
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 429 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 429 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of D'Heilly v. Gunderson 428 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of D'Heilly v. Gunderson 428 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Reif v. Reif 426 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Reif v. Reif 426 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 425 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 425 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Bury v. Bury 416 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Bury v. Bury 416 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“If the determination has a reasonable and acceptable basis in fact, it must be affirmed.” ().
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Driscoll v. Driscoll 414 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Driscoll v. Driscoll 414 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Koenen v. Koenen 413 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987