Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Clark v. Clark, 642 N.W.2d 459.

27 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Bamidele Adetifa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citation and quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Antoine Versabeau, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citation and quotations omitted).
Jesse Lambert Colburn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(denying a motion to strike as unnecessary when the matter at issue was in the record or reference to that matter was not required for resolution of the appeal, or both).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that while a district court may acce pt all or part of a proposed stipulation, “generally, [a district court] cannot, by judi cial fiat, impose conditions on the parties to which they did not stipulate and thereby deprive the parties of their ‘day in court’” (quoting Toughill v. Toug
In re the Marriage of: Vicki Collette Sandberg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“First, the party can seek to withdraw from or vacate the stipulation upon which the proposed judgment is based.” Clark v. Clark , ; see Shirk v. Shirk , -22 (Minn. 1997) (addressing a party’s ability to withdraw from a stipulation); (same) .
In re the Marriage of: Oliver Wilfred Cass, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
n.1 (Minn. App. 2002) (observing that party sufficiently raised a challenge under rule 307(b) by filing a letter objecting to entry of the proposed judgment).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Matter of: Nezha Boutlane, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Interpretation and application of procedural rules are legal issues that are reviewed de novo.”
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(–66 (Minn. App. 2002), and stating in a parenthetical that the “use of an incorrect standard to resolve an issue constitutes an abuse of discretion”).
Ross Ronald Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
fit of counsel, but the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of the children”), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, 2000 Minn. Laws ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, at 984-85 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(i) (2016)); see also Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, (stating that courts are not 9 bound by stipulations); (“[A] district court has the discretion to accept all or part of a proposed stipulation.
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 Father first challenges the district court’s determination that father did not establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to act.6 He points out that the district court did not call him on December 8, 2014 as he asserts court administrative staff told him the court would do to in
In re the Estate of Mae Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Estate of Mae Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(denying a 15 motion to strike information in the record as unnecessary to the resolution of the appeal); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Laura Kay Ellingsworth, Hennepin County v. Moses Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura Kay Ellingsworth, Hennepin County v. Moses Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(denying motions to strike as unnecessary due to the outcome of the appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 459, 465 (Minn. App. 2002).
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
George Reilly, Trustee of the Nathan L. Bentson 1993 Irrevocable Trust v. Michael J. Antonello, and Michael J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
George Reilly, Trustee of the Nathan L. Bentson 1993 Irrevocable Trust v. Michael J. Antonello, and Michael J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (“Because the district court failed to consider appellant's arguments and failed to make the findings needed to address these contentions, we remand.”); (remanding case to district court to decide factual question); see also Doe 175 ex rel Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-66 (Minn.App.2002) (noting use of an incorrect standard to resolve an issue constitutes an abuse of discretion and remanding for use of the correct standard).
Marriage of Gottsacker v. Gottsacker 664 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 2003
Marriage of Gottsacker v. Gottsacker 664 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 2003
Feb.15, 2000); , 464 n. 1 (Minn.App.2002) (“Generally, arguing an issue in a post-trial motion or on appeal, even one previously raised in the district court, on a theory other than the theory upon which that issue was initially argued to the district court precludes the district or appellate court from addressing the newly raised t

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by