Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 28, 1997No. CX-96-1414PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KALITOWSKI, Judge.

This appeal arises from an action for partition of four parcels of farmland. Appellants, Mark Anderson, Marlys Johnson, and Pamela Anderson, challenge the district court’s decisions: (1) to award parcels 1 and 2 to respondents Bernhard and Lucille Anderson and parcels 3 and 4 to appellants with owelty to equalize the partition; and (2) not to consider appellants’ capital gains tax liability resulting from the award.

FACTS

Appellants and respondents each have an undivided one-half interest, as tenants in common, in four parcels of farmland as fully described in the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  2. Swogger v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  3. Richmond v. DofflemyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. Aaron v. AaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. Hoerr v. HoerrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. County of Blue Earth v. TurtleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  2. Glenwood Investment Properties, L.L.C. v. Carroll A. Britton Family TrustCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  3. John W. Conzemius v. David J. FinneganCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API