Redding v. Redding

5 Citing cases

  1. Redding v. Oldewartel

    411 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    James filed an appeal that same day, and on July 22, 1985, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's finding as to the nonmarital nature of a portion of the stock, but remanded the case for reconsideration of the length of time for James' payment to respondent. Redding v. Redding, 372 N.W.2d 31 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1985).

  2. Oldewurtel v. Redding

    421 N.W.2d 722 (Minn. 1988)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that when a judgment was not docketed, even "for reasons not apparent from the record," a judgment lien did not exist

    In its opinion of this case, the court of appeals inadvertently misspelled the respondent's name as "Oldewartel." The facts and history of this case are complicated. A complete recitation of the facts surrounding the marriage dissolution can be found at Redding v. Redding, 372 N.W.2d 31 (Minn.App. 1985). The facts which are pertinent to this appeal are as follows:

  3. State v. Laugen

    No. C9-03-2 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2003)

    Wilson v. City of Fergus Falls, 181 Minn. 329, 332, 232 N.W. 322, 323 (1930). We may correct clerical errors on appeal. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 110.05 (providing that this court may direct that errors be corrected either by motion of a party or on its own initiative); see also Redding v. Redding, 372 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Minn.App. 1985) (making a modification of an inadvertent error in a judgment), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1985).

  4. In re Marriage of Gottsacker

    No. C1-02-615 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2002)

    Gottsacker cites Redding v. Redding for the proposition that a lack-of-marketability discount is unnecessary when a family collectively owns a majority interest in a business because, as a result of their ability to work together, the minority owners enjoy the benefits of a majority ownership in the business, which includes marketability. 372 N.W.2d 31, 34-35 (Minn.App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1985).

  5. In re Mattson v. Mattson

    No. C1-99-196 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 27, 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Correcting for an obvious clerical error, the court found that appellant's net monthly income was $1,714.92 and respondent's was $2,860.66. See Redding v. Redding, 372 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Minn.App. 1985) (court of appeals can correct obvious clerical errors), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1985).