160 appellate filings (91 unique cases) across 15 years. From the Minnesota Court of Appeals to the Minnesota Supreme Court, we fight for our clients at every level.
Total Filings
Years of Appellate Work
Published Opinions
Family & Criminal
Not every case ends at the trial court. When a conviction or ruling is unjust, our attorneys have the skill and determination to take the fight to the appellate courts. Attorney Jacob Birkholz has personally argued cases before the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court, securing reversals and favorable rulings for clients when it mattered most.
Appellate work demands a different skill set than trial advocacy. It requires meticulous legal research, persuasive brief writing and the ability to identify errors of law that can change the outcome of a case. With 91 appellate matters handled across 15 years, our firm brings unmatched depth of experience to every appeal.
Client: S.E.N.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter arises out of the marriage dissolution of T.M.N. and S.E.N.. The broader dispute has centered on spousal maintenance, attorney fees, and whether Teresa’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) should count as income or a financial resource when determining maintenance. The parties’ dissolution was finalized in 2016, with Teresa receiving transitional spousal maintenance of $2,500 per month through December 2028 and need-based atto
Client: S.E.N.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant in a spousal maintenance dispute concerning the treatment of an Employer Stock Ownership Plan. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision that undistributed employer contributions to an ESOP do not constitute gross income.
Client: S.E.N.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter arises out of the marriage dissolution of T.M.N. and S.E.N.. The broader dispute has centered on spousal maintenance, attorney fees, and whether Teresa’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) should count as income or a financial resource when determining maintenance. The parties’ dissolution was finalized in 2016, with Teresa receiving transitional spousal maintenance of $2,500 per month through December 2028 and need-based atto
Client: K.S.S.A.
K.S.S. Al-Yamaie appealed in Minnesota Court of Appeals case A25-0161 against respondent F.A.K. Al Saeedi. The appeal arose from Hennepin County district court file 27-FA-24-626, where the district court dismissed Al-Yamaie’s child-support action and awarded Al Saeedi $8,000 in conduct-based attorney fees; judgment was entered on December 5, 2024. The Court of Appeals treated the appeal as being taken from that December 5 final judgment, applying the rule that notices o
Client: B.C.
Christiansen v. Christiansen, Case No. A24-1974, is a Minnesota Court of Appeals family law matter arising from the dissolution of the marriage of B.L.C. (Appellant) and T.N.C. (Respondent). Brenda filed the appeal on December 17, 2024, challenging an unspecified ruling from the district court. Shortly after filing, on December 18, 2024, the Court of Appeals referred the case to the Family Law Appellate Mediation Program under Chief Judge Susan L. Segal’s orde
Client: T.D.
In a civil dispute over an unpaid loan, the district court denied the appellant’s motion to vacate an Arizona default judgment, finding the Arizona court had personal jurisdiction. Birkholz Law represented the appellant on appeal, challenging the personal jurisdiction determination. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: C.R.B.
Background: This case involves a post-divorce dispute between A.M.B. (Respondent) and C.R.B. (Appellant), whose marriage was dissolved by judgment and decree in 2012. The core conflict centers on Charles’s 2020 motion to modify spousal maintenance — a proceeding that remained unresolved for years. While that motion was still pending, Angela filed a separate motion in July 2024 seeking temporary need-based attorney fees to help fund her legal costs during the ongoing
Client: J.S.
The district court granted the father’s application to change the name of the parties’ joint minor child to a hyphenated surname. Birkholz Law represented the father on appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order, finding an abuse of discretion.
Client: T.R.
T.R.R. challenged the extension of his license-revocation period following violations of the Ignition Interlock Device Program. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s determination that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review license-revocation extensions under Minn. Stat. § 171.19.
Client: D.T.
In a custody dispute, the district court awarded sole physical and legal custody to the father after precluding the mother from presenting evidence at an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion in precluding the mother’s evidence, reversing and remanding the decision. Birkholz Law successfully appealed the district court’s decision on behalf of the mother, ensuring her right to present evidence in the custody proceedings.
Client: M.G.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter, In re the Marriage of C.E.G. and M.M.G., involved a family-law appeal between C.E.G., the petitioner/respondent, and M.M.G., the appellant. The appeal was docketed as A24-0585. On April 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals determined that the matter qualified for the Family Law Appellate Mediation Program and referred the case to mediation. The court ordered both parties and counsel to participate
Client: M.G.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter arose from the dissolution of marriage between C.E.G., petitioner/respondent, and M.M.G., appellant. The underlying district court case involved custody and parenting-time issues, followed by post-decree motion practice: appellant sought review of a September 1, 2023 judgment and decree addressing custody and parenting time, a January 31, 2024 order denying amended findings and awarding $2,120 in conduct-based attorney fees,
Client: T.L.G.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter arose from a marital dissolution case titled In re the Marriage of T.L.G. v. V.A.G., Court of Appeals file A24-0484. T.L.G. was the petitioner and respondent on appeal, and V.A.G. was the appellant. The appeal was filed on March 22, 2024, and was initially referred to the Court of Appeals’ Family Law Appellate Mediation Program, with appellate processing stayed while mediation was pending. The court required the p
Client: D.D.K.
D.D.K. appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to modify her court-ordered parenting time with her two children. Birkholz Law argued that modification was in the children’s best interests due to D.D.K.’s maintained sobriety and consistent parenting. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to maintain the existing schedule.
Client: S.O.
Birkholz Law represented S.L.O. in an appeal challenging the denial of his motion to reinstate his commercial driver’s license following a vacated conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding it lacked authority to expunge executive branch records.
Client: E.U.
The appellate court affirmed the district court’s final judgment of conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault. Birkholz Law represented the appellant on appeal, arguing issues regarding juror bias, exclusion of a video recording, and predatory offender registration. The court found no structural error, that the exclusion of the video was harmless, and that the sentencing order complied with the statute.
Client: L.C.
L.C. appealed the district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO) against her. Birkholz Law successfully argued that the record did not support a determination that L.C.’s conduct was harassing. The appellate court agreed and reversed the HRO.
Client: B.P.P.
In this custody dispute, the pro se appellant-mother argued the district court abused its discretion in awarding sole legal and physical custody to the respondent-father. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion and upholding the custody award in favor of our client.
Client: S.S.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter arose from a family-law dispute between S.L.S., the petitioner and appellant, and J.S.S., the respondent. The appeal was filed on December 14, 2023, and challenged a July 28, 2023 child-support modification order as well as a later order denying S.S.’s postdecision motions and awarding J.S. $1,500 in conduct-based attorney fees. The Court of Appeals initially questioned whether it had jur
Client: A.J.B.
Birkholz Law advocated for the appellant’s property rights by challenging the district court’s dismissal of her claims. The firm argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and abused its discretion. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: K.D.T.
K.T./Turouk and N.K.D. were formerly married, and their dispute centered on a marital home awarded to Dak in the dissolution proceedings, subject to a $31,950.32 lien in favor of K.T.. The dissolution order required Dak to satisfy the lien when the home was sold, or earlier if she chose, and required K.T.’s name to be removed from the mortgage by the end of 2017; Dak timely removed his name from the mortgage. Years later, K.T. sought to force a sale, refinancing, or paymen
Client: B.C.
B.L.C. appealed the district court’s order granting her ex-husband’s motion to modify spousal maintenance and ruling on her related countermotion. The district court’s decision to reduce the permanent spousal-maintenance award, establish the life-insurance obligation amount, and deny need-based attorney fees was affirmed. Birkholz Law represented B.L.C. on appeal.
Client: C.B.
The appellant was convicted of domestic assault-fear after an incident involving his former romantic partner. On appeal, Birkholz Law argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent and that the jury’s verdicts were legally inconsistent. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Client: J.M.
Our firm successfully represented the appellant in a complex property dispute arising from the dissolution of a long-term, marriage-like relationship. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision regarding unjust enrichment claims over a cabin built on our client’s nonmarital property. This ruling clarified important equitable principles for unmarried cohabitants in Minnesota.
Client: J.T.L.
J.L. appealed the district court’s order establishing a parenting-time schedule for the 2022-2023 school year, arguing the decision lacked sufficient factual findings. Birkholz Law represented J.L. on appeal. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: K.A.R.
Birkholz Law successfully defended an order for protection on behalf of a mother and her two minor children. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the order and require supervised parenting time for the appellant.
Client: K.B.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant in challenging a probation revocation. The firm argued that the district court erred in finding the need for confinement outweighed policies favoring continued probation. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: N.G.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant father in a family law appeal concerning school selection and physical custody modification. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s orders granting the mother’s school selection and denying the father’s request for joint physical custody. Despite the outcome on appeal the father retained equal parenting time with the child.
Client: F.H.
The state charged the client with multiple offenses, including gross misdemeanor interference with an emergency 911 call and misdemeanor domestic assault. On appeal, the client argued that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he engaged in disorderly conduct. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: R.B.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant in challenging the district court’s grant of an order for protection. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: J.J.
J.B. was arrested for driving while impaired and his license was revoked. He challenged the revocation, arguing the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the stop, lacked probable cause to arrest, and failed to vindicate his right to counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: J.S.
In a minor child name change dispute, the district court granted the father’s application over the mother’s objection. We successfully appealed on behalf of the mother, arguing the district court improperly placed the burden of persuasion on her. The appellate court agreed, reversing and remanding the decision because the district court abused its discretion by imposing an improper burden on the objecting parent.
Client: J.S.
J.A.S. and K.K.V. are the parents of minor child L.J.V. The uploaded appellate orders show two related Minnesota Court of Appeals matters arising out of B.E.C.: appeal A23-1316, involving a July 6, 2023 family-court order about an income-tax dependency exemption, and appeal A23-1384, involving a July 19, 2023 order granting J.A.S.’s application to change the minor child’s surname. The Court of Appeals referred A23-1316 to the Family Law Appellate Mediation Pro
P.D.N. appealed his convictions for attempted and completed second-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing insufficient evidence and that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the minor complainant’s out-of-court statements. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision. Birkholz Law represented the appellant in this matter.
Client: S.E.N.
Birkholz Law successfully represented the appellant in a spousal maintenance dispute where the district court’s denial of a motion to modify spousal maintenance was challenged. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded the case, finding the district court abused its discretion by failing to make factual findings regarding whether an employee stock option plan (ESOP) constituted a form of periodic payment. This decision also required reconsideration of the respondent’s motion for need-based attorney fees.
Client: B.B.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant in challenging a district court’s grant of an order for protection. The firm argued that the district court improperly relied on documents not offered as evidence and that the findings did not support the order. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: S.D.&.M.N.D.
Birkholz Law successfully appealed a district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of a wrongful-death action. The appellate court agreed that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the respondent driver’s negligence, allowing S.T.D.’s case to proceed.
Client: T.K.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions that had forgiven T.K.’s child support arrearages based on an extrajudicial agreement with L.S.L. Birkholz Law successfully represented T.K. at the lower court levels, though the Supreme Court ultimately determined that private agreements to modify child support orders are invalid as a matter of law.
Client: A.M.Y.
State of Minnesota v. A.M.Y., No. A23-0465 was a Minnesota Court of Appeals matter involving the State of Minnesota as respondent and A.M.Y. as appellant. The uploaded appellate filing is not a merits opinion; it is a short Court of Appeals order. The case reached the appellate court under docket number A23-0465, but the record provided does not identify the underlying district-court charge, conviction, sentence, or specific issue originally raised on appeal. [Order – Di.
Client: K.D.T.
K.T. appealed the dismissal of his action to foreclose on a marital lien against his former spouse. The district court’s dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Birkholz Law represented K.T. in challenging the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Client: D.A.B.
D.A.B. appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to modify spousal maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding the district court lacked authority to modify maintenance because it did not expressly award or reserve it in the initial dissolution judgment. Birkholz Law represented the appellant in this matter.
Client: B.P.
B.J.P. appealed the district court’s decision to deny his motion to modify parenting time. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision. Birkholz Law represented the appellant.
Client: L.B.
In a family law dispute over parenting time and child relocation, the district court granted the mother’s motion to move the minor child to South Dakota and denied the father’s motion to modify parenting time. On appeal, Birkholz Law successfully defended the district court’s decision on behalf of the appellant, resulting in the appellate court affirming the lower court’s orders.
Client: C.R.B.
C.R.B. appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to modify an award of permanent spousal maintenance and a request for a vocational evaluation of his ex-wife. Birkholz Law successfully argued that the district court erred by failing to consider whether the ex-wife had the potential to increase her earned income and by denying the vocational evaluation. The appellate court reversed those decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Client: M.P.
Background: This matter is a criminal appeal captioned State of Minnesota (Respondent) v. M.J.P. (Appellant) in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, A22-0540. In Faribault County District Court, M.J.P. pleaded guilty to fifth-degree misdemeanor assault and received a stay of adjudication on November 2, 2021, with restitution reserved for later determination. After a contested restitution hearing on January 27, 2022, the district court issued a March 18, 2022 order directing M.J.P. to p
Client: L.C.
L.R.H. appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing. Birkholz Law successfully represented L.R.H. on appeal, arguing the district court failed to address the required elements for a prima facie case to modify custody due to endangerment. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: M.S.
This Minnesota Court of Appeals matter (A22-0330) arises from a family-law dispute captioned In re the Marriage of M.M.S. (petitioner/appellant) and J.L.S. (respondent). After the appeal was filed, the Court of Appeals screened the case through its Family Law Appellate Mediation Office and determined it qualified for the Family Law Appellate Mediation Program. On March 15, 2022, the court entered an order referring the case to mediation, requiring mediator-
Client: B.F.
Birkholz Law represented appellant in an appeal challenging a gross-misdemeanor DWI conviction based on an unreasonable traffic stop. The firm argued the district court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: C.K.
C.K. appealed his criminal sexual conduct convictions, arguing the statute of limitations had expired, the state delayed charging him in violation of his due process rights, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Birkholz Law represented C.K. on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: L.G.
L.J.G. was convicted of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person and sought postconviction relief, alleging false testimony by the State’s DNA expert. The district court granted a new trial, but the appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, finding the claim procedurally barred. Birkholz Law represented the appellant in this matter.
Client: K.B.
K.M.B. appealed the district court’s order revoking his probation, arguing due-process violations and inadequate findings. Birkholz Law successfully argued that the district court’s findings on the third Austin factor were inadequate to support the revocation. The appellate court reversed on that issue and remanded for further findings.
Client: L.O.(.
Birkholz Law successfully appealed the revocation of L.G.O.’s stay of adjudication. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding the district court erred in its probation violation findings and failed to clarify specific probation conditions.
Client: C.F.
C.R.F. and C.L.F. dissolved their marriage pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement. C.R.F. later sought to change the terms of the settlement, which the district court denied while awarding C.L.F. conduct-based attorney fees and costs. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of attorney fees and costs, securing a favorable outcome for Birkholz Law’s client.
R.A.B. appealed an order denying his petition to rescind his driver’s license revocation and his DWI conviction, arguing the traffic stop was unlawful because the statute prohibiting wide turns is unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding the traffic stop was justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity independent of the wide turn statute.
Client: K.D.T.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant in a family law dispute regarding a marital home and mortgage obligations. The firm advocated for the client’s property interests by arguing that the district court should correct a clerical error and force the sale or refinancing of the home. Although the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, the firm ensured the client’s arguments were thoroughly presented on appeal.
Client: B.P.
The district court issued an order for protection (OFP) against B.P. based on allegations of domestic abuse against his minor children. Birkholz Law represented B.P. on appeal, arguing against the OFP. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding that the preponderance of the evidence supported the allegations.
Background: This case arose from a custody dispute in Minnesota in which G.N.K., a young mother, signed a custody consent decree in August 2020 transferring full legal and physical custody of her child to the child’s maternal grandparents, Bradley and M.B.. G.N.K. later claimed she signed the document without understanding what it was — alleging the grandparents told her it was medical paperwork that would only be temporary, that she had no attorney, that ther
Client: K.V.
Birkholz Law represented K.L.V. in an appeal challenging a restitution order following a third-degree assault conviction. The firm argued the district court lacked authority to order restitution after the sentencing hearing. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: D.G.
Paragraph 1 — Background & Development This case arose from the dissolution of the marriage of C.J.G. and D.S.G. in Minnesota district court. Connie, as petitioner and appellant, challenged the district court’s handling of property, debts, attorney fees, maintenance, and land sale tax consequences. Douglas filed a notice of related appeal of his own, contesting the allocation of assets and debts, the rejection of his claim that certain assets were nonmarital, the
Client: C.F.
Background: This case arises from the dissolution of marriage between C.R.F. (appellant/petitioner) and C.F. (respondent) in Minnesota district court (Trial Court No. 07-FA-19-1549). The underlying dispute involved two district court orders issued in late 2020: a December 11 order denying Charles’s motion to modify a mediated agreement, and a December 21 order requiring him to pay Cheri $6,510 in conduct-based attorney fees and costs. Charles filed an appeal on February 9
Client: F.W.
On February 1, 2021, F.W. filed this appeal (A21-0147) asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to review two district-court orders: a September 30, 2020 order that dismissed F.W.’s petition for third‑party custody for lack of standing, and a December 4, 2020 order that denied F.W.’s request to amend the September order. But this was not F.W.’s first attempt to appeal those same orders. On December 18, 2020, F.W. had already filed a different appeal (A20-1597) challenging the same two o
J.H. was convicted of DWI-test refusal and obstructing legal process after challenging the probable cause for his arrest and the district court’s conclusion that he refused a breath test. Birkholz Law appealed the convictions, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in jury instructions, but the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
Client: N.C.
In this marital dissolution appeal, the district court’s judgment regarding property division was challenged on multiple grounds. Birkholz Law successfully represented the appellant in securing a reversal and remand on the issue of rent from the farm property while the remaining property division issues were affirmed.
R.A.B. appealed an order denying his petition to rescind his driver’s license revocation and his DWI conviction, arguing the traffic stop was unlawful because the statute prohibiting wide turns is unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding the traffic stop was justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity independent of the wide turn statute.
Client: K.E.
K.E. sued his homeowner’s insurance company after it denied coverage for fire damage to his home. Birkholz Law successfully argued that the Minnesota standard fire insurance policy entitles the homeowner to prejudgment interest even if it exceeds the policy coverage limit. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions and remanded the case to recalculate the prejudgment interest in favor of the client.
Client: R.H.
The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for fifth-degree controlled-substance possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. Birkholz Law argued on behalf of the client that the evidence was insufficient, but the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: F.”.S.
F.C.S. was stopped by a state trooper after his car’s tires touched the fog line, leading to a DWI charge and license suspension. The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and the appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the driving justified the stop. Birkholz Law represented F.C.S. in challenging the constitutionality of the stop.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant mother in an appeal challenging a juvenile court order that granted the father sole legal custody and permission to relocate their child out of state. The firm argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and improperly applied juvenile protection rules to post trial motions. While the appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision, Birkholz Law provided dedicated advocacy to protect the client’s parental rights.
In December 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals said it wasn’t sure it even had the authority to hear the appeal. The appeal was trying to challenge an October 21, 2019 district court order that awarded $7,500 in conduct-based attorney fees and also made changes related to an earlier divorce judgment. The appeals court explained that you usually can’t appeal an “order” like this by itself—you normally have to appeal from an officially entered judgment—and the record didn’t clearly show that a j
Client: M.B.
M.B. was charged with encouraging the need for protection or services. The Supreme Court held that the State does not need to prove the child is actually in need of protection or services for a guilty verdict. Birkholz Law successfully represented M.B. in clarifying this statutory requirement on appeal.
In this DWI case, the appellant challenged the warrantless entry of police into her open garage as a Fourth Amendment violation. The district court denied the motion to suppress evidence and sustained the revocation of her driver’s license. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: A.H.
M.J.B. appealed a district court determination that his five children were in need of protection or services. Birkholz Law represented M.J.B. on appeal, arguing the district court’s findings were inadequate and it erred in its determinations regarding the children’s best interests and safety. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: K.E.
Birkholz Law represented K.W.E. in an insurance coverage dispute after his property was damaged by fire. The firm successfully appealed the district court’s failure to award prejudgment interest. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to make a determination regarding prejudgment interest.
Client: B.W.
Birkholz Law represented B.W.W. in a marital dissolution dispute challenging the district court’s amendment of a property division regarding a 401(k) account and the denial of conduct-based attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
Client: C.K.
Birkholz Law successfully defended against claims of property damage and secured a $16,000 judgment for the client on a conversion counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of punitive damages because civil theft was not pleaded.
Client: R.J.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant father in an appeal seeking to modify his parenting time schedule. The firm argued that the district court applied the incorrect standard and failed to make best-interests findings. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion.
Client: E.P.
The State appealed the district court’s decision to grant E.J.P.’s motion to suppress marijuana seized during a vehicle search and dismiss the controlled-substance charges. Birkholz Law successfully argued that the officer lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to expand the traffic stop, resulting in the appellate court affirming the district court’s dismissal.
Client: P.L.
P.R.L. was convicted of agreeing to hire a minor to engage in sexual penetration after a sting operation. On appeal, P.R.L. argued the evidence was insufficient to establish he reasonably believed the female was 16 years old and that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
Client: R.J.
In June 20, 2018, the Minnesota Court of Appeals sent this family-law appeal into the court’s Family Law Appellate Mediation Program and paused the normal appeal timeline while mediation happened. The parties were told to submit mediator-selection and confidential-information forms by July 5, 2018, to participate promptly, and to attend mediation sessions (with possible sanctions if someone refused or dragged things out). The court also emphasized that mediation details would stay confidential a
A.L.W. appealed the district court’s determination that law enforcement had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the scope of an initial traffic stop and pursue a DWI investigation. Birkholz Law argued on behalf of A.L.W. that the expansion was unjustified. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision.
Client: B.W.
Birkholz Law represented the appellant in a dissolution of marriage case challenging a spousal maintenance award. The firm successfully argued that the district court abused its discretion by basing the award on gross rather than net incomes and by awarding an excessive amount. The appellate court reversed the maintenance award and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Client: J.J.
J.B. appealed his convictions and sentences for offenses including solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct. Birkholz Law successfully argued that the district court erred in sentencing him for multiple offenses arising from the same course of conduct, resulting in the appellate court reversing in part and remanding the case.
Client: A.B.(.
The district court granted the mother sole physical custody, awarded her the homestead as nonmarital property, and found the father in contempt. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. Birkholz Law successfully represented the mother on appeal.
Client: A.H.
In the July 25, 2017 order, the Minnesota Court of Appeals basically said: “Hold on—are we even allowed to hear this appeal right now?” The appellant filed an appeal on July 21, 2017, trying to challenge a May 22, 2017 district court order that refused to undo the parties’ May 6, 2016 stipulated divorce judgment (he argued mistake/surprise/excusable neglect). But the May 22 order also threw out an earlier enforcement order (because the respondent hadn’t properly served her motion) and said the p
Client: J.P.
Birkholz Law successfully appealed a district court’s denial of a father’s motion to modify child support. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the father’s child support obligation should be recalculated using the parents’ combined parental incomes.
Client: K.D.
On March 8, 2016, the Minnesota Court of Appeals refused to pause (stay) K.S.D.’s appeal while waiting for a U.S. Supreme Court decision in State v. Bernard. The court said it wasn’t required to hold the case because its “wait for another decision” rule is aimed at cases pending in the Minnesota Supreme Court, and it also wasn’t clear the U.S. Supreme Court case would fully settle the issues in K.S.D.’s appeal. The court then gave procedural directions: K.S.D. had to contact the Minnes
Client: D.N.(.
March 3, 2015 – Order Questioning Jurisdiction: On March 3, 2015, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an order questioning whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal filed by D.N.C. (now known as D.N.) in the matter of her marriage dissolution case against R.C.. The appellant had mailed her notice of appeal on February 24, 2015, seeking review of district court orders dated June 20, October 6, and December 24, 2014, all relating to an award of conduct-bas
Order Questioning Jurisdiction (September 12, 2014): On September 12, 2014, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an order questioning whether it had jurisdiction over H.C.T.’s appeal. The appeal, filed by mail on September 9, 2014, sought review of district court actions connected to a harassment restraining order proceeding brought by M.G.W.. The court noted that an evidentiary hearing was held on January 31, 2014, and a harassment restraining order was filed on
Order Staying the Appeal and Referring to Mediation (February 12, 2014). In February 2014, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reviewed the appeal filed in In re the Marriage of M.L.W. (n/k/a R.) and B.K.W. and determined that it qualified for the Family Law Appellate Mediation Program. The court ordered the appeal referred to mediation and required the parties to complete and return mediator selection and confidential information forms by February 26, 2014. The
Jacob M. Birkholz represented the appellant parents in an appeal challenging the termination of their parental rights. The firm argued that the district court abused its discretion in making its decision. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling based on the evidence presented.
The “Order – Jurisdiction Questioned” (January 15, 2013) addresses a procedural concern raised by the Minnesota Court of Appeals regarding whether it had jurisdiction to hear the parents’ appeal in a juvenile‑protection case involving termination of parental rights. The appeal was filed on January 4, 2013, seeking review of a December 27, 2012 termination order, but the record showed that the appellants also filed a posttrial motion for a new trial or amended findings on the same day. Under Minn
Birkholz Law successfully defended a district court order granting the expungement of M.D.T.’s criminal records. The State appealed the decision to seal records maintained by both the judicial and executive branches. The appellate court affirmed the expungement allowing the client to clear her record.
Appellate work requires mastery of legal precedent and statutory interpretation. Our attorneys bring that depth to every case, at trial and on appeal.
If a trial court made an error of law, an appeal can correct it. We identify those errors and build compelling arguments for reversal.
Appellate decisions set precedent. Our Supreme Court victories have helped shape Minnesota law and protect the rights of future defendants.
If you believe a trial court made an error in your case, contact us today for a strategy session. Time limits apply to filing appeals in Minnesota.
Award-winning law firm serving Southern Minnesota for over 50 years. Dedicated to protecting your freedom, rights and family.
121 St. Andrews Court Mankato, MN 56001
209 Armstrong Blvd South St. James, MN 56081
Albert Lea · Austin · Blue Earth · Faribault · Fairmont · Jackson · Lake Crystal · Luverne · Mankato · Marshall · New Ulm · North Mankato · Northfield · Owatonna · Pipestone · Redwood Falls · St. James · St. Peter · Waseca · Windom · Worthington
Copyright 2026 Birkholz & Associates | Privacy Policy | Minneapolis Web Design
