Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Stroh v. Stroh, 383 N.W.2d 402.

23 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
its own exercise of discretion.” (d 402, 407 (Minn. App. 1986)).
Deborah Lynn Nichols, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Last, the purpose of allowing a motion for amended findings and conclusions “is to permit the [district] court a review of its own exercise of discretion.” (emphasis added).
Athena 2004, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Klingelhutz, (“[T]he purpose of a motion to amend conclusions is to permit the [district] court a review of its own exercise of discretion.”).
Lariat Companies, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Klingelhu tz, ( Landmark II); (“[T]he purpose of a motion to amend conclusions is to permit the [district] court a review of its own exercise of discretion.”).
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
14, 2006); see Stroh v. Stroh , , 407 (Minn. App. 1986) ("[T]he purpose of a motion to amend conclusions is to permit the [district] court a review of its own exercise of discretion.").
Moslais X. Vue, n/k/a Moslais Michele Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he purpose of a motion to amend conclusions is to permit the trial court a review of its own exercise of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of a motion to amend,” under rule 52.02, “is to permit the trial court a review of its own exercise of discretion.”
Lewis v. Lewis 572 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Lewis v. Lewis 572 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“The purpose of a motion for amended findings ‘is to permit the trial court a review of its own exercise of discretion.’” (), review denied (Minn. June 30, 1997).
Johnson v. Johnson 563 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Johnson v. Johnson 563 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The purpose of a motion for amended findings “is to permit the trial court a review of its own exercise of discretion.”
Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden 448 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden 448 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel 400 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel 400 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re Marriage of Edlund v. Tennis 392 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Marriage of Edlund v. Tennis 392 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant does not dispute the validity of his agreement to allow respondent continued occupancy of the homestead until 1991 (the date her youngest child will become emancipated) (Minn.Ct.
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 388 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 388 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by