Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Maurer v. Maurer, 623 N.W.2d 604.

127 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Nelson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 604, 606 (Minn. 2001).
In the Marriage of: Deborah J. Schmitt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Berry & Co., Inc. v. County of Hennepin , , 33 (Minn. 2011) (stating standard in context of supreme court review of the tax court's property valuation); *755 Maurer v. Maurer , , 606 (Minn. 2001) (stating that appellate courts will not set aside a district court's determination of an asset's value in a family-law case unless the finding was "clearly erroneous on the record as a whole" (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court acts within its discretion in applying a tax rate if it has “a ‘reasonable and supportable basis for making 11 an informed judgment as to [the] probable liability.’” () (alteration in original), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Maurer v. Maurer , , 606 (Minn. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Maurer v. Maurer , (“A [district] court has broad discretion in dividing property upon dissolution of a marriage.”).
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Mandeep Singh Sodhi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-0300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Cassie Marie Birr, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Such findings of fact, when made without a jury, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous 5 on the record as a whole.” (quotations and citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the review of tax consequences is within a district court’s discretion and opposing such consideration if the district court is presented with insufficient evidence to make an adequately informed decision on the point); (“Although it
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In this case, the court of appeals suggested that the district court did not have to account for the tax consequences of the reallocation
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When deciding whether a finding of fact is clearly erroneous, [an appellate] court takes the view of the evidence which is most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” Id.; (acknowledging that, in dissolution matters, valuation findings are necessarily based on approximations, and “broad deference is appropriate” so that such findings should not be reversed “unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole”).
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Christina Marie Rexine v. Joey Lee Rexine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christina Marie Rexine v. Joey Lee Rexine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Pettey v. Melissa Denise Pettey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Pettey v. Melissa Denise Pettey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a “bright-line 10 rule would leave little, if any, room for the exercise of discretion”).
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that whether to consider the tax consequences of a property distribution lies within the district court’s discretion).
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Marie Lauderdale v. Scott James Lauderdale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a “bright-line rule would leave little, if any, room for the exercise of discretion”); cf. id.
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015