Cited by

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

661 citing documents.

Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” ; see also Lake George Park, L. L.C.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, 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: 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: 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Michael Schemel, Relator, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Fadumo Salad, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Damian Loth, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Kay Vogt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Thomas Hesse, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1336 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Gordon Burnett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Mark Wendell Hagen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that appellate courts defer to district courts on credibility determinations).
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Marshall Municipal Utilities, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1668 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Peterson n/k/a Jennifer Ann Hirschey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Julia Ellen Conlon, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: 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, Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017