Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Servin v. Servin, 345 N.W.2d 754.

104 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An appellate court “must affirm the trial court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will affirm a district court’s “division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will affirm the district court ’s property division if the court 11 had “an acceptable basis in fact and principle.” Servin v. Servin
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1065 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Julia Ellen Conlon, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
5 Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 139.02 states: “Unless otherwise ordered by the appellate court, the prevailing party shall be allowed that party’s disbursements necessarily paid or incurred.” “Supersedeas bonds are considered costs of appeal.”
Minn. 2017
” “Supersedeas bonds are considered costs of appeal.”
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
t “has broad discretion in dividing marital property upon dissolution of a marriage[,]” its division of that property “will be overturned only for a clear abuse of discretion[,]” and an appellate court “must affirm the trial court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though [the appellate court] may have taken a different approach.”
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
(stating that requiring an appeal from the original judgment while the issues were under consideration by a district court appeal panel would defy common sense and sound judicial practice).
Walswick-Boutwell v. Boutwell 663 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Walswick-Boutwell v. Boutwell 663 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
On appeal, we will “affirm the trial court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.” (citations omitted).
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
We will affirm the district *720 court’s division of property “if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle.” (citations omitted).
Marriage of Antone v. Antone 645 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2002
Marriage of Antone v. Antone 645 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2002
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Korf v. Korf 553 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Korf v. Korf 553 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bilal v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 537 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1995
Bilal v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 537 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1995
*620 “[A]n appellant prevails if he secures a reversal or modification of the order or judgment from which an appeal is taken, and the respondent prevails if he secures affirmance without modification.”
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minnegasco, Inc. v. County of Carver 447 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1989
Minnegasco, Inc. v. County of Carver 447 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 439 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 439 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
When a marriage is dissolved, the “trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital property.”
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Cich v. Cich 428 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Cich v. Cich 428 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Amundson v. Amundson 414 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Amundson v. Amundson 414 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 409 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 409 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(respondent prevails if she secures affirmance without modification).
Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 400 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 400 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel 400 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel 400 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
( Senglaub v. Senglaub, 302 Minn. 547, 548 , -16 (1974)).
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 395 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 395 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(the appellant was required to file a supersedeas bond under Minn.R.Civ.App.P.
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 392 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986