Cited by

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

661 citing documents.

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
P. 52.01; (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
7 (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
in which the obligee’s margin account loan payment was “temporary and more in the nature of an investment.” Finally, is also misplaced.
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Beardsley v. Garcia 731 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”); Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legisla
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
§ 518.18 are a legislative acknowledgment "[of] the importance of maintaining a consistent and stable custody situation”); ( , 711 n. 1 (Minn.1985) both noted "four of the nine [best-interests] criteria [of Minn.Stat.
Peterson v. Johnson 720 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Peterson v. Johnson 720 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See, -12 (Minn.1988) (deferring to a district court’s credibility determinations); Jenson v. Dep’t of Econ.
Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dailey v. Chermak 709 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Motors Acceptance Corp., (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Long v. Creighton 670 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Long v. Creighton 670 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk 668 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk 668 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(stating appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); Tonka Tours, (stating whether party acts in good faith is, essentially, a credibility question).
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
of Comm’rs, (concluding that additional reasons for denial of a conditional use permit (CUP) not raised in the initial proceedings could not be used to support denial of the CUP because they were beyond the scope of remand); (concluding that the district court erred in determining the custody of a sibling because it was beyond the scope of remand).
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(appellate courts defer to district court assessments of credibility).
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
Criticized J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(criticizing this court as going beyond its scope of review in a custody appeal by reweighing evidence).
Criticized Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(criticizing this court as going beyond its scope of review in a custody appeal by reweighing evidence).
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Tonka Tours, (whether party acts in good faith is, essentially, credibility question); (appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mize v. Kendall 621 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(finding that circumstances resulting from the length of litigation can be crucial to determining the child’s best interests).
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001