Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey, 432 N.W.2d 473.

33 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
to proceed in any manner not inconsistent with the remand order.”
Peter Richard Rickmyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
to proceed in any manner not inconsistent with the remand order.”
All-American Ice L.L.C., DBA All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
to proceed in any manner not inconsistent with the remand order.”
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
to proceed in any manner not inconsistent with the remand order.” (citing John Wright & Assocs., ).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. S., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Eric Ringsred, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On remand, a district court must “execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” Duffey v. Duffey
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court’s duty on remand is to “execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N I. Scope of the Remand “A [district] court’s duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” see also Dobbins v. State , (“[District] courts generally have broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, [but] they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” (quotations omitted)).
Glacial Plains Cooperative, a cooperative association, formerly known as United Farmers Elevator, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A trial court’s duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” Duffey v. 8 Duffey
A17-1036 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
25, 2000); −77 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming permanent -spousal-maintenance award for 43 -year-old spouse after 20 -year marriage when spouse did not work outside home during marriage and had completed only one year of college); Hall v. Hall , (affirming temporary instead of permanent
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
District courts have broad discretion on remand, and they may “act in any wa y not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Id.; Duffey v. Duffey
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: N. M. L. and E. R. L., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: N. M. L. and E. R. L., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A [district] court’s duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.”
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 857 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 857 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
On remand, however, it is a court’s duty “to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.”
State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr. 856 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr. 856 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A [district] court’s duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.”
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 259-60 , (allowing discretion in presenting additional evidence); (allowing discretion on remand).
In Re Margolis Revocable Trust 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Lorberbaum v. Huff 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Lorberbaum v. Huff 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re Margolis Revocable Trust 765 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bauerly v. Bauerly 765 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bauerly v. Bauerly 765 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A district court’s duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court “strictly according to its terms.”
In Re the Marriage of Dobrin 555 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Marriage of Dobrin 555 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
{Duffey II)- Noting that we had given no specific instructions to the trial court in Duf-fey I as to how it should comply with the remand order, we held in Duffey II that the trial court’s decision not to reopen the record for further evidence was not an abuse of discretion and that the obligee’s
Marriage of White v. White 521 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Marriage of White v. White 521 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“Only rarely will a trial court’s decision regarding attorney fees be overturned on appeal.” (citation omitted).