Cited by

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

661 citing documents.

Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kokosh next argues that this court “should exercise its supervisory power to reverse this case in the interest of justice, judicial integrity, and notions of good policy.” “The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Father John Dee Czaplewski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. S., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sefkow v. Sefkow , d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988); see also In re Welfare of R.T.B.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kucera, 275 Minn. at 254-55, d at 183; (holding that the court of appeals exceeds its scope of review by “reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”); Whitaker v. 3M Co., n.1 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[O]ur role as an error-correcting court does not extend to making factual findings in the first instance.”), revie
834 Voice v. Independent School District No. 834 893 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
834 Voice v. Independent School District No. 834 893 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 “The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-America Emps.
Mansoor Akhtar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013)
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Wakisha Nicole Fortwengler, n/k/a Alexa Nicole Schultz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see also Rutz v. Rutz , (stating that appellate courts can not “engage in a redetermination of facts but defer to the district court’s credibility determinations and to findings that are supported by the record ”), review denied (Minn. July 16, 2002).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurer v. Maurer , 623 see also Nelson v. Schlener , (quoting this aspect of Sefkow); Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-Am.
Vincent Rosetta v. Quality Bicycle Products, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Vincent Rosetta v. Quality Bicycle Products, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” (citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We defer to the district court’s d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
County of Washington, Danielle Kathryn Richardson v. Brandon Christopher Fischer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
County of Washington, Danielle Kathryn Richardson v. Brandon Christopher Fischer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Bridget Kathleen Corrigan, f/k/a Bridget Kathleen Schmidt v. Daniel Thomas Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Bridget Kathleen Corrigan, f/k/a Bridget Kathleen Schmidt v. Daniel Thomas Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The standard of review on appeal from a district court’s custody-related determination is whether the district court “abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A. v. Jamison Robert Arend Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A. v. Jamison Robert Arend Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that this court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(deferring to what was “functionally” a district court’s credibility determination).
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See 7 (“The function of the court of appeals [as an error-correcting court] is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Savings The district court excluded from Bichrt’s reasonable monthly expenses her claim of $540 for retirement savings and $200 for other savings and investments, reasoning that “the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that savings amounts should be excluded when determining a spouse’s reasonable needs”
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the Child Of: J.P.-S. and J.D.F., Parents 880 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the Child Of: J.P.-S. and J.D.F., Parents 880 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And, because this court is an error-correcting court, Sefkow v. 8 Sefkow, we cannot impose such a burden on the district court in the absence of authority mandating such consideration, (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”)
In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Joseph Leroy Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Joseph Leroy Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”).