Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow, 375 N.W.2d 30.

35 citing documents.

In the Matter of Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“On appeal, we consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. V. Z., Father. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that a claim of judicial bias should be raised at the district court to be considered on appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We have previously concluded that no judicial bias existed when there was “nothing in the record except appellant’s allegation to indicate that the trial judge was either unfair to [wife] or biased in favor of [husband].”
In re the Marriage of: Richard Leo Bassing, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 36, 40 (Minn. 1982) (affirming 54% -46% property division); (affirming 53%-47% property division); (affirming 57.5%-42.5% property division where the district court considered that, “were it not for appellant’s sporadic employment history and historically low earnings from employment, responde
In re the Marriage of: Jason Robert Carter, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Brown, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- 36 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding “[ t]he ultimate division” of marital property was not an abuse of discretion despite erroneous valuation of certain property).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We consider “only those issu es that the record s hows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted) (observing that appellant raised no objections that the district court was biased against her and did not move the district court to recuse himself).
In re the Matter of: Brooks J. Waldron, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We generally consider “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).
A20-1369 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
” Gummow v. Gummow , (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Francis Stephen Gill, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (affirming a division of a contingent marital asset based on husband’s post -separation contribution to increase the value of a contingent marital asset); Batsell v. Batsel l, (reversing district court’s equal real property division because in the 21
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. R. S. and D. A. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Guardianship of Charles Rottelo, Ward. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Guardianship of Charles Rottelo, Ward. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Freeing v. Freeing 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Freking v. Freking 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Freking v. Freking 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gummow v. Gummow , , 35 (Minn.App.
In re the Marriage of Freeing v. Freeing 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
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 Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
requires the trial court to value the pension at some date other than the date of the final decree.
Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Fette v. Peterson 406 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Fette v. Peterson 406 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Redning seeks to fortify his claim that the trial court’s appeal after remand, and subsequent cases holding that a trial court loses jurisdiction once an appeal is perfected.
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
(“Property acquired by the parties * * * prior to the actual final decree is marital property.”).
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 395 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 395 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court also found the motion to be untimely, Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Tuma v. Tuma 389 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tuma v. Tuma 389 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1986