DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Warren v. Warren, 133 N.W. 1009.

40 citing documents.

  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
  • Bissell v. Bissell 191 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1971
  • Bissell v. Bissell 191 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1971
    Senn v. Senn, 254 Minn. 294 , Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , Haskell v. Haskell, 116 Minn. 10 , Id.
  • Mund v. Mund 90 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1958
  • Mund v. Mund 90 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1958
    Fruen v. Fruen, 228 Minn. 391 , 37 N. W. (2d) 417 ; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Randall v. Randall, 181 Minn. 18 , ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 ; Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 .
  • Mark v. Mark 80 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1957
  • Mark v. Mark 80 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1957
    4 Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Erickson v. Erickson, 181 Minn. 421 , ; Vassar v. Vassar, 204 Minn. 326 , ; see, 15 Minn. L. Rev. 347 (as to property agreements incident to divorce, see 37 Minn. L. Rev. 395 ); 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Botkin v. Botkin 77 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1956
  • Botkin v. Botkin 77 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1956
    Hagen v. Hagen, 212 Minn. 488 , 4 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 ; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , .
  • Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
  • Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
    5 In Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , we took cognizance that a judgment for alimony, as a matter of fact, may be based on a stipulation.
  • Holmberg v. Holmberg 51 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1952
  • Kate v. Kate 48 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1951
  • Kate v. Kate 48 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1951
    2 Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , ; Plankers v. Plankers, 178 Minn. 31 , 225 * Vassar v. Vassal, 204 Minn. 326
  • Boiteau v. Boiteau 33 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1948
  • Boiteau v. Boiteau 33 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1948
    “In 58 A. L. R. note p. 639, the general rule is stated to be that where a court has general power to modify a decree for alimony or support, the exercise of that power is not affected by the fact that the decree is based on an agreement entered into by the parties to the action.” See, also, Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Sessions v. Sessions, 178 Minn. 75 , .
  • Wilcox v. Wilcox 24 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1946
  • Wilcox v. Wilcox 24 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1946
    Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , 133 N.W.
  • Warner v. Warner 17 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1944
  • Warner v. Warner 17 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1944
    The title to the section reads “Revision, As To Alimony, After Decree.” In Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , , the first syllabus paragraph, written by Mr. Justice Brown, reads: “It is within the power of the court, under section 3592, R. L. 1905 [now § 518.23], subsequent to the entry of a judgment for ali *79 mony in a divorce action, to make such modifications respecting the alimony awarded as the changed
  • Vassar v. Vassar 283 N.W. 483 Minn. 1939
  • Vassar v. Vassar 283 N.W. 483 Minn. 1939
    Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Randall v. Randall, 181 Minn. 18 , ; Erickson v. Erickson, 181 Minn. 421 , .
  • Clarizio v. Castigliano 277 N.W. 262 Minn. 1938
  • Clarizio v. Castigliano 277 N.W. 262 Minn. 1938
    Haskell v. Haskell, 116 Minn. 10 , ; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , .
  • Bickle v. Bickle 265 N.W. 276 Minn. 1936
  • Bickle v. Bickle 265 N.W. 276 Minn. 1936
    Gunderson v. Gunderson, 163 Minn. 236 , ; see Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , .
  • Erickson v. Erickson 232 N.W. 793 Minn. 1930
  • Erickson v. Erickson 232 N.W. 793 Minn. 1930
    Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , , clearly holds that, notwithstanding the fact that a judgment for alimony is based on a stipulation of the parties, the court has authority to make such modification thereof as the changed conditions and circumstances of the parties may from time to time.require.
  • Randall v. Randall 231 N.W. 413 Minn. 1930
  • Randall v. Randall 231 N.W. 413 Minn. 1930
    Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Sessions v. Sessions, 178 Minn. 75 , ; 58 A. L. R. 639, and numerous cases there cited.
  • Halper v. Halper 229 N.W. 791 Minn. 1930
  • Halper v. Halper 229 N.W. 791 Minn. 1930
    We do not stop to inquire whether the stipulation or the judgment entered pursuant to it could be vacated against objection on motion, gee Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , .
  • Sessions v. Sessions 226 N.W. 211 Minn. 1929
  • Sessions v. Sessions 226 N.W. 211 Minn. 1929
    Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , 133 N.W.
  • Webber v. Webber 196 N.W. 646 Minn. 1923
  • Webber v. Webber 196 N.W. 646 Minn. 1923
    19 C. J. 255; Warren v. Warren, 114 Minn. 389 , ; 116 Minn. 458 , .
  • Searles v. Searles 168 N.W. 133 Minn. 1918
  • Searles v. Searles 168 N.W. 133 Minn. 1918
    G. S. 1913, §§ 7128-7129; Haskell v. Has- *388 kell, 116 Minn, 10, , and cases cited; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Hoff v. Hoff, 133 Minn. 86 , .
  • Roberts v. Roberts 161 N.W. 148 Minn. 1917
  • Roberts v. Roberts 161 N.W. 148 Minn. 1917
    Haskell v. Haskell, 116 Minn. 10 , ; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Hoff v. Hoff, 133 Minn. 86 , .