In re the Marriage of Opp

34 Citing cases

  1. Soeffker v. Soeffker

    A12-0211 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2012)

    Minn. R. Civ. P. 58.01. Respondent's argument is without merit because the judgment and decree was entered by the court administrator on November 3, 2009. Although the judgment was not docketed until July 2011, the judgment was effective upon entry. Respondent's reliance on In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994), is unpersuasive.

  2. Swanson v. Burke

    No. A08-0909 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)

    Similarly, we review the district court's decision on an issue of laches for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994).

  3. In re Marriage Donovan v. Donovan

    No. A07-2060 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2008)

    We review a district court's decision to apply, or not apply, laches for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994).

  4. EBEN v. BROUILLETTE

    No. A06-2181 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007)

    A district court's decision to apply, or not apply, the doctrine of laches is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994).

  5. BATEMAN v. CITY OF LA CRESCENT

    No. C5-99-1979 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2000)

    A district court's decision to apply the doctrine of laches will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Opp v. Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994).

  6. State ex Rel. Stovall v. Meneley

    271 Kan. 355 (Kan. 2001)   Cited 142 times
    Defining laches, waiver

    We review a trial court's application or denial of the doctrine of laches under an abuse of discretion standard of review. See In re Marriage of Fogarty Rasbeary, 78 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 (2000) (noting that the better rule is to apply an abuse of discretion standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to apply the doctrine of laches); In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn.Ct.App. 1994) (applying abuse of discretion standard to doctrine of laches); and Miss.-Fox River Drainage No. 2 v. Plenge, 735 S.W.2d 748, 754 (Mo.App. 1987) (appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion when considering whether trial court erred in applying doctrine of laches). Prior to trial, Meneley moved the court to dismiss the case against him on the basis of laches.

  7. Bruntlett v. Bruntlett

    No. A22-0331 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2023)

    We review the application of the doctrine of laches for an abuse of discretion. Opp v. LaBine, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn.App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994). An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court misapplies the law or relies on clearly erroneous fact findings.

  8. Fludd v. Kirkwood

    253 Md. App. 329 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    In Fludd, we explained that "[w]hen determining the appropriateness of applying laches to a child support action, courts must consider the best interest of the child and the parents' continuing duty to 'support' and 'care' for the child." Id., 265 A.3d at 1181.

    2016) ; Holmes v. Wooley , 792 A.2d 1018, 1023 (Del. Super. Ct. 2001) ; Logan v. Logan , 920 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ; Wynn v. Craven , 301 Ga. 30, 799 S.E.2d 172, 173 (2017) ; State, Dep't of Health & Welfare ex rel. State of Wash. ex rel. Nicklaus v. Annen , 126 Idaho 691, 889 P.2d 720, 722 (1995) ; Knaus v. York , 586 N.E.2d 909, 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) ; Strecker v. Wilkinson , 220 Kan. 292, 552 P.2d 979, 984-85 (1976) ; Holmes v. Burke , 462 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971) ; Gambino v. Gambino , 396 So.2d 434, 438 (La. Ct. App. 1981) ; Dunwoody v. Dunwoody , 155 A.3d 422, 425 (Me. 2017) ; Child Support Enf't Div. of Alaska v. Brenckle , 424 Mass. 214, 675 N.E.2d 390, 396-97 (1997) ; In re Marriage of Opp , 516 N.W.2d 193, 196-97 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994) ; Miss. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Molden , 644 So.2d 1230, 1234 (Miss. 1994) ; Pfeifer v. Pfeifer , 370 Mont. 158, 301 P.3d 821, 823 (2013) ; In re Estate of DeLara , 131 N.M. 430, 38 P.3d 198, 202 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) ; Napowsa v. Langston , 95 N.C.App. 14, 381 S.E.2d 882, 887 (1989) ; Patten v. Vose , 404 Pa.Super. 426, 590 A.2d 1307, 1309-10 (1991) ; Ables v. Gladden , 378 S.C. 558, 664 S.E.2d 442, 445-46 (2008) ; Tovsland v. Reub , 686 N.W.2d 392, 402-03 (S.D. 2004) ; Tex. Att'y Gen. v. Daurbigny , 702 S.W.2d 298, 300-01 (Tex. App. 1985) ; Lyon v. Lyon , 143 Vt. 458, 466 A.2d 1186, 1188-89 (1983) ; Taylor v. Taylor , 14 Va.App. 642, 418 S.E.2d 900, 902 (1992) ; Robinson v. McKinney , 189 W.Va. 459, 432 S.E.2d 543, 546 (1993) ; Paterson v. Paterson , 73 Wis.2d 150, 242 N.W.2d 907, 910 (1976) ; Hammond v. Hammond , 14 P.3d 199, 201-03 (Wyo. 2000).

  9. Klingelhutz Judgment, LLC v. Klingelhutz

    A19-1894 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2021)   Cited 1 times
    In Klingelhutz, the plaintiff relied on the judgment-lien statute to argue that its judgment-renewal action was timely when it was commenced within ten years of docketing, but not entry, of the judgment.

    Accordingly, the ten-year statute of limitations begins to run when the rule 58.01 procedures are completed. See In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 195 (Minn. App. 1994) (holding the statute unambiguously means that the limitations period begins to run upon entry of judgment and that judgment was not "entered" until the court administrator complied with rule 58.01), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994).

  10. Hempel v. Hempel (In re Marriage of Hempel)

    A17-1055 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2018)

    We review a district court's decision to apply the doctrine of laches for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994).