Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, 673 N.W.2d 169.

28 citing documents.

Overruled In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that “Madson overrules any aspect of Lewis suggesting that the merits of a motion for amended findings bear on whether an appeal time is tolled”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
A25-1854 A25-1856 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., see State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (noting Madson overruled Lewis in part, but that, after Madson, Lewis’s discussion addressing the necessary components of a motion for amended findings remains good law), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
A24-0675 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that if there is conflicting evidence, a court is not compelled to amend), rev. denied 8 (Minn. Mar.
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Larson v. Gannett Co., Inc., (new trial); State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., -78 (Minn. App. 2003) (amended findings), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
cmt.; State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota by Peters Sunset Beach, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Kelly Michels, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-78 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Northern Lines Contracting, Inc., Appellant, vs. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Bd., -79 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Christine Marie Salvosa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Joel S. Rabbe, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
19, 1998); see also State by Fort Snelling Park Ass’n v Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., d 169, 178 n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that Lewis has been overruled in part, but remains good law as far as establishing the n ecessary components for a motion for amended findings), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Friends of Tower Hill Park, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
that the appellant’s civil action under MERA “was authorized regardless of administrative processes.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
A18-1870 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Bd ., , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Pamela J. Atkinson n/k/a Pamela J. Kraker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
19, 1998); see also State by Fort Snelling Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (noting t hat Lewis has been overruled in part, but remains good law as far as 2 Wife also challenges the district court’s application of the doctrine of unc lean hands.
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (explaining that Madson only partially overruled Lewis and that “[d]istrict courts should, therefore, continue to use Lewis to determine whether a motion for amended findings has the necessary components and, if it does, then address whether to grant the motion”), review denied (Minn. M
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
whether to grant the motion.” State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar.
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.
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bd., review denied (Minn. Mar.
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., -78 (Minn.App.2003), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 711 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 711 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
This court addressed a similar jurisdiction argument involving MERA in State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Zander v. State 703 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Zander v. State 703 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bd., review denied (Minn. Mar.