Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kellar v. Von Holtum, 605 N.W.2d 696.
- Rooney v. Rooney 669 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Rooney v. Rooney 669 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 664 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2003
-
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd.
664 N.W.2d 291
Minn. 2003
We conclude that the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the final judgment after appeal because such enforcement is “independent of the underlying [appellate] decision” and would not “modify the underlying [appellate] decision in any way.”
- Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet 659 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet
659 N.W.2d 782
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
P. 11.03 was added, the controlling authorities with respect to the notice required for rule 11
- Podvin v. Jamar Co. 655 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Podvin v. Jamar Co. 655 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 649 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2002
- Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 649 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2002
- Pratt Investment Co. v. Kennedy 636 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Pratt Investment Co. v. Kennedy 636 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Franck 621 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Franck 621 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Harms v. Oak Meadows 619 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2000
- Harms v. Oak Meadows 619 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2000
- Lyon Financial Services, Inc. v. Waddill 607 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Lyon Financial Services, Inc. v. Waddill 607 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Peterson v. Hinz 605 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Peterson v. Hinz 605 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2000