Cited by

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

664 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Curtis Glenn Marks v. Stacy Rene Marks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We generally defer to the district co urt’s credibility determinations, and the district court’s credibility determination is well supported.
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders v. Joseph James Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Mark Allen Kedrowski v. Masako Kedrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Oluf Johnson, et al v. Consumers Cooperative Association of Litchfield Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” ; see also Lake George Park, L. L.C.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Karl Berzins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company v. Great River Energy, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”
In re the Marriage of: Nicholas James Davis v. Theresa Anne Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court thus considers the spendable income of the parties, and the parties’ reasonable expenses, (considering whether monthly savings were a reasonable expense).
In re the Marriage of: Laura Diane Hermer v. Lawrence James Cisek, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
& n.3 (Minn. 1997) (d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. R. T. and P. B. B., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (noting that the function of this court is limited to identifying and correcting errors); Tereault v. Palmer , (stating that extending laws is the province of the supreme court or the legi slature, but not this court), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking v. Audra Jo Buxengard f/k/a Audra Jo Freking Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Michael Schemel v. Vermilion Capital Management, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc. , (“When witness credibility and conflicting evidence are at issue, we defer to the decision-maker’s ability to weigh the evidence and make those determinations .”); (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan v. Smeeta Antony Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Fadumo Salad v. Hassan Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-2081, A18-0015 John Doe 125 (A17-2078), John Doe 126, et al. (A17-2081), John Doe 123, et al. (A18-0015) … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Damian Loth v. Gregory Hoscheit, et al., George Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Howard Nordquist Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limi ted to identifying erro rs and then correcting them.”
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger v. Richard C. Dreger Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood v. Kari Ann Greenwood Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad v. Stephanie Christine Olstad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski v. Joan Susanne Pnewski Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We defer to the district court’s judgment of the credibility of witnesses, including expert witnesses
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Kay Vogt v. Gary Dennis Vogt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Thomas Hesse v. Toni Renee Wingrove Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Father’s testimony contradicts this finding, but “[w]hen evidence rele vant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.” (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 910 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sefkow v. Sefkow , , 210 (Minn. 1988).
Marcus Fultz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“The scope of review of an appellate court is narrowly defined.
In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement By and Between Eugene V. Stowell and Shirley Marie … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 52.01, and defer to district court credibility determinations, (Mi nn.
In re the Marriage of: Linde Anne Sayen v. Michael Stephen Sayen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. L. G., D. M. and J. T. … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that it is not the appellate court’s function to reweigh evidence, find facts, or as sess credibility); (giving the district court’s credibility determinations deference in the juvenile protection context).
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Gordon Burnett v. Daniela Estefania Burnett Torres Parra Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Mark Wendell Hagen v. Carol Marie Hagen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that appellate courts defer to district courts on credibility determinations).
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch v. Andrew Baertsch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child, Minn. 2018
We give deference “to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”
In re the Marriage of: Praveen Prabhakaran v. Vadivazhaghi Kannan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Marshall Municipal Utilities v. Donald J. DeLanghe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (“The function of the court of appeals is limi ted to identifying erro rs and then correcting them.”); Tereault v. Palmer , (setting forth principle that “the task of extending exis ting law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall
Johnson v. Johnson 902 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. Johnson 902 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Bradley Jude Domagala v. Laura Lynn Domagala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michael Keith Rhyan v. Marni Linette Rhyan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (stating that the district court’s findings must be sustained unless clearly erroneous, and deferring to district court’s credibility determinations).
In re the Marriage of: Walter Stance Davis v. Regina Kay Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green v. Julie Ann Green Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ramsey County, Bisharo M. Aden, n/k/a Bisharo M. Jama v. Aaron L. Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Peterson n/k/a Jennifer Ann Hirschey v. Kevin John Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Julia Ellen Conlon v. Gregory Dean Conlon Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki v. David Victor Rucki, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: David Allan Kotz v. Edna Vassilovski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (“Deference mu st be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Th e function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying erro rs and then correcting th em.” (citations omitted)); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislat ure, but it does not fall to this
Bryan Scherping, d/b/a JBR Farms; et al v. Amy Scherping, et al. and third party plaintiffs, vs. Bryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by