Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130.

254 citing documents.

Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M. 791 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M. 791 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Buscher v. MONTAG DEVELOPMENT, INC. 770 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Buscher v. MONTAG DEVELOPMENT, INC. 770 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-44 (Minn.1990) (setting forth minimum procedural requirements for rule 11 sanctions).
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
( was superseded by statute); (noting “statutes have superseded the common law in most aspects of family law.”).
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
EOP argues that the tax court’s decision is inconsistent with our precedent
Gibson v. Trustees of the Minnesota State Basic Building Trades Fringe Benefits Funds 703 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gibson v. Trustees of the Minnesota State Basic Building Trades Fringe Benefits Funds 703 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-43 (Minn.1990), superseded by statute on other grounds, Minn.Stat.
In Re the Welfare of the Children of J.B. 698 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of the Children of J.B. 698 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(stating evidentiary ruling is reversible only if district court abused its discretion in manner resulting in prejudice to objecting party); (concluding that admission of certain evidence in termination-of-parental-rights proceeding
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(holding that a party must bring a motion demonstrating “prejudice or implied or actual bias” if the party failed to remove the judge before trial), superceded by statute on other grounds, Minn.Stat.
State v. Carter 682 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Carter 682 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
In Re Panel Case No. 17289 669 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2003
In Re Panel Case No. 17289 669 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2003
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC 668 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC 668 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Powell v. Anderson 660 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2003
Powell v. Anderson 660 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2003
See, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Radloff v. First Am.
Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet 659 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet 659 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
New Market Township v. City of New Market 648 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
New Market Township v. City of New Market 648 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Matson v. Matson 638 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
superseded on other grounds by Minn. Stat. § 549.21 ; see Radloff v. First Am.
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Robb 622 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Robb 622 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“Entitlement to a new trial on the grounds of improper evidentiary rulings rests upon the complaining party’s ability to demonstrate prejudicial error.” *575 (citation omitted).
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(“[T]he attorney or party must have fair notice of both the possibility of a [Rule 11] sanction and the reason for its proposed imposition.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by