Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203.

661 citing documents.

In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
(stating that “[d]eference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses”).
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The function of this court “is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” (citations omitted).
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
This is an error-correcting court
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We, as an error-correcting court, do not have the authority to read into the UMDDA a remedy where none exists.
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust 818 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 2012
In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust 818 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 2012
When determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, we “take[] the view of the evidence which is most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” and defer to the district court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, (citing Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(asserting that the scope of this court’s review is narrowly defined and “limited to identifying errors and then correcting them”).
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Ass’n, Local 1980, (“[Jjudicial restraint bids us to refrain from deciding any issue not essential to the disposition of the particular controversy before us.”); (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
Marriage of Choa Yang Xiong v. Su Xiong 800 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Choa Yang Xiong v. Su Xiong 800 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Bob Acres, LLC v. Schumacher Farms, LLC 797 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Bob Acres, LLC v. Schumacher Farms, LLC 797 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that credibility determinations are best made by the fact-finder and are given great deference on review).
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” (citations omitted)); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”)
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gellert v. Eginton 770 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gellert v. Eginton 770 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(noting that appellate court’s function is identifying and correcting errors).
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 766 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Whitaker v. 3M Co. 764 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Whitaker v. 3M Co. 764 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(holding that court of appeals exceeds its scope of review by "reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”).
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
21, 2001); (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008