Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite VanderLeest v. VanderLeest, 352 N.W.2d 54.

25 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Jane Swenson Amdal, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Vanderleest v. Vanderleest , .
In re the Marriage of: Francis Stephen Gill, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- 15 (Minn. App. 2005) (concluding that portion of contingent legal fee payments not yet received were marital) , review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005) ; Salstrom v. Salstrom , -51 (Minn. App. 1987) (concluding that portion of incentive stock options were marital); VanderLeest v. VanderLeest , -58 (Minn. App. 1984) (concluding that portion of disability annuity benefits were marital); (concluding that portion of deferred compensation benefits were marital).
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The meaning of an unambiguous provision “can be determined without any guide other than knowledge of the facts on which the language depends for meani ng.” VanderLeest v. VanderLeest
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Allen Ertl v. Diane Martha Ertl 871 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-51 (Minn.App.1987) (incentive stock options); (deferred compensation); -58 (Minn.App.1984) (disability annuity).
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
See Swanson, d at 18 (stating that “spouse’s right to receive a disability annuity can be construed as a marital asset to be divided”)
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(holding that a disability annuity is marital property because the rights to receive it arose from the labor performed by the spouse during the marriage).
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
A contract provision is unambiguous when its meaning can be ascertained “without any guide other than knowledge of the facts on which the language depends for meaning.” (citations omitted).
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Anderson v. Archer 510 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(interpretation of stipulation is legal question).
Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Auer v. Scott 494 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
see also Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., (when interpreting contracts, courts presume parties intend language used to have effect and “will attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless”).
Marriage of Sandberg v. Johnston 415 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sandberg v. Johnston 415 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(the interpretation of a stipulation incorporated into the parties’ dissolution decree is a question of law).
Marriage of Stewart v. Stewart 400 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Stewart v. Stewart 400 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Landwehr v. Landwehr 380 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Watson v. Watson 379 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Watson v. Watson 379 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We held the “right to receive a disability annuity can be construed as a marital asset to be divided.”
Marriage of Landwehr v. Landwehr 380 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
this court indicated that a dissolution provision is unambiguous if [i]ts meaning can be determined without any guide other than knowledge of the facts on which the language depends for meaning.