DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Strom v. Strom, 107 N.W. 1047.

33 citing documents.

  • Beaudette v. Frana 173 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1969
  • Beaudette v. Frana 173 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1969
    Prior decisions of this court inconsistent with this decision are expressly overruled, including Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 191; Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064; Woltman v. Woltman, 153 Minn. 217 , ; Patenaude v. Patenaude, 195 Minn. 523 , ; Kyle v. Kyle, 210 Minn. 204 , ; Karalis v. Karalis, 213 Minn. 31 , 4 N. W. (2d) 632 ; an
  • Hovanetz v. Anderson 148 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1967
  • Hovanetz v. Anderson 148 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1967
    We are urged to reverse that decision and others which have applied the rule to substantially similar facts since it was first announced in this state in 1906 by Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L. R. A. (N.S.)
  • Poepping v. Lindemann 127 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1964
  • Poepping v. Lindemann 127 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1964
    Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L. R. A. (N.S.)
  • Pelowski v. Frederickson 116 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1962
  • Pelowski v. Frederickson 116 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1962
    “* * * it is my candid opinion that the time has come when a reexamination of the validity of the rule of Strom v. Strom [ 98 Minn. 427 , ] should be made in the light of present modern day conditions.” The trial court also cited Kyle v. Kyle, 210 Minn. 204 , ; and Shumway v. Nelson, 259 Minn. 319 , 107 N. W. (2d) 531 .
  • Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
  • Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
    It was early held in Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.
  • Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
  • Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
    5 In Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.
  • American Automobile Insurance v. Molling 57 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1953
  • American Automobile Insurance v. Molling 57 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1953
    Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Donigan v. Donigan 53 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1952
  • Donigan v. Donigan 53 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1952
    In support of his position, he argues that on the salutary ground of public policy one spouse is barred from maintaining a suit against the other in actions sounding in tort, citing Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Karalis v. Karalis 4 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1942
  • Karalis v. Karalis 4 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1942
    Woltman v. Woltman, 153 Minn. 217 , Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Kyle v. Kyle 297 N.W. 744 Minn. 1941
  • Kyle v. Kyle 297 N.W. 744 Minn. 1941
  • Kyle v. Kyle 297 N.W. 744 Minn. 1941
    1927, c. 72, particularly § 8616 thereof, and held in Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Kyle v. Kyle 297 N.W. 744 Minn. 1941
    1927, c. 72, particularly § 8616 thereof, and held in Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , 107 N.W.
  • Patenaude v. Patenaude 263 N.W. 546 Minn. 1935
  • Patenaude v. Patenaude 263 N.W. 546 Minn. 1935
    Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Eschenbach v. Benjamin 263 N.W. 154 Minn. 1935
  • Eschenbach v. Benjamin 263 N.W. 154 Minn. 1935
    (2 ed.) § 4288b; Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.
  • Albrecht v. Potthoff 257 N.W. 377 Minn. 1934
  • State v. Arnold 235 N.W. 373 Minn. 1931
  • State v. Arnold 235 N.W. 373 Minn. 1931
    1064 , and Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , 107 N.W.
  • Woltman v. Woltman 189 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1922
  • Woltman v. Woltman 189 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1922
    In Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 191, 116 Am.
  • Drake v. Drake 177 N.W. 624 Minn. 1920
  • Drake v. Drake 177 N.W. 624 Minn. 1920
    The action then sounds in tort, and that it cannot be maintained seems settled by the decision in Strom v. Strom, 98 Minn. 427 , , 6 L.R.A.(NS.)