Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson, 379 N.W.2d 230.

29 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Deborah Kay Schadewald, n/k/a Deborah Kay DeJong, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nelson, d at 871; d 230, 233 (Minn. App. 1985).
Khan Turouk, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Kathy Marie Fowler, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
ortant, given the potential ambiguity in the order as it regards the issue (and given its apparent emotional importance to the parties), we also observe that either party may seek clarification, and the district court may clarify its decision, so long as its resulting order “serves only to express more accurately the thoughts which the original judgment intended to convey.”
In re the Marriage of: Nyawan Kuon Dak, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Kristine Ann Spratt Hansen, n/k/a Kristine Ann Spratt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Such clarification does not constitute an amendment to the judgment.”
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of: Kari Dale Hickey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co., 275 Minn. 365, 370-71, (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the [district] court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it 5 is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); see Hanson v. Hanson , d 230, 232 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that a property division in a dissolution action becomes final and cannot be modified once the time to appeal expires).
Nelson v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Nelson v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ladwig v. Chatters 623 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Ladwig v. Chatters 623 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of McGowan v. McGowan 532 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of McGowan v. McGowan 532 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The judgment here having made no lump sum award, the trial court’s jurisdiction was needed later, when pension payments began, to “issue appropriate orders implementing or enforcing specific provisions of the dissolution decree.” (citation omitted); (), pet.
Marriage of Graff v. Graff 472 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Graff v. Graff 472 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 452 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 452 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 440 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 440 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
support her assertion that the trial court’s order was merely an “implementation” and not a modification of the original judgment.
The Marriage Erickson v. Erickson 430 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Marriage Erickson v. Erickson 430 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(held, on appeal from amended judgment, trial court may implement and enforce provisions of decree related to property to expedite sale of home); (held, on appeal from amended judgment, trial court may clarify, implement, and enforce its own division of property); (held, on appeal from order, trial court may implement provisions governing sale of home).
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Linder v. Linder 391 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Linder v. Linder 391 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(court converted one party’s share of the parties’ personal property to a cash award after the parties were unable to physically divide up the property); (court replaced the former husband who was the real estate agent selling the par