Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen, 621 N.W.2d 276.

30 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
preted “in such a way as to give meaning to all of its provisions.” Brookfield Trade Ctr., (“[I]n arriving at the meaning of a judgment or decree, the judgment as a whole should be considered in interpreting any particular clause or sentence therein[.]”); (applying the rules of contract construction to a stipulated dissolution judgment), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Blonigen v. Blonigen , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Shane Foss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But the district court should review the decision “free from the influence, guidance, or control of the [child support] magistrate.” Blonigen v. Blonigen , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Catherine Elizabeth Welch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Durand Dornquast, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he court must consider the stipulation as a whole to determine whether an ambiguity exists.” Blonigen v. Blonigen , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Shirk v. Shirk , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Lisa Jensen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he requirement that t he district court make an independent review of findings and provisions in the [CSM’s] decision means that the district court was to make its review free from the influence, guidance, or control of the magistrate.” Blonigen v. Blonigen , 0 (Minn. App. 20 01), review denied (Minn. Mar.
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
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Michael Hudson v. Daniel Joseph Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Michael Hudson v. Daniel Joseph Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 276, 281 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Marriage of Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick 673 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick 673 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
The “independent” nature of the review means that the reviewer owes no deference to the CSM's original decision and addresses the matter “de novo.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Strandberg v. Strandberg 664 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Strandberg v. Strandberg 664 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(applying Ayers), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by