DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Drake v. Drake, 177 N.W. 624.

33 citing documents.

  • Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Newton 646 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Newton 646 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    In enacting the statute, the legislature sought to eliminate the disabilities concomitant to being a married woman by, among other things, placing married women on an equal *898 footing with their husbands “in respect to the management and control of [their] separate property.” Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388, 390 , 177 N.W.
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
    373, 376 (1931) (declaring it a matter of policy whether theft between a husband and wife constitutes larceny and noting that "policy is for the legislature”); Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388, 391 , 177 N.W.
  • Abrahamson v. Abrahamson 613 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Abrahamson v. Abrahamson 613 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    In enacting the statute, the legislature sought to eliminate the disabilities concomitant to being a married woman by, among other things, placing married women on an equal footing with their husbands “in respect to the management and control of [their] separate property.” Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388, 390 , 177 N.W.
  • Barile v. Anderson 203 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1972
  • Barile v. Anderson 203 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1972
    In Koenigs, we quoted the following language from Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388, 391 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064, 1066 (1920), with approval ( 246 Minn. 470 , ): “* * * But the welfare of the home, the abiding place of domestic love and affection, the maintenance of which in all its sacredness, undisturbed by a public exposure of trivial family disagreements is so essen
  • 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 ; and Hovanetz v. Anderson, 276 Minn. 543 , 148 N. W. (2d) 564 .
  • Pelowski v. Frederickson 116 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1962
  • Pelowski v. Frederickson 116 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1962
    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 , ; see, also, Note, 32 Minn. L. Rev. 262 , 282; Annotation, 43 A. L. R. (2d) 632.
  • Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
  • Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
    3 For example, in Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388, 391 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064, 1066, the court noted that the home is “the abiding place of domestic love and affection” and should be “undisturbed by a public exposure of trivial family disagreements.” 4 See, e. g., New York Domestic Relations Law, § 57.
  • Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
  • Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
    This court referred therein to Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388, 391 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064, 1066, wherein this court said: * * But the welfare of the home, the abiding place of domestic love and affection, the maintenance of which in all its sacredness, undisturbed by a public exposure of trivial family disagreements is so essential to society, demands and require
  • Donigan v. Donigan 53 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1952
  • Donigan v. Donigan 53 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1952
    191, and Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064.
  • Karalis v. Karalis 4 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1942
  • Karalis v. Karalis 4 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1942
    191, 116 A. S. R. 387 (intentional); cf. Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064 (husband sued wife, intentional).
  • 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
    The decision in the Strom case has been adhere to, in 1920, by Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , 177 N.W.
  • Kyle v. Kyle 297 N.W. 744 Minn. 1941
    The decision in the Strom case has been adhered to, in 1920, by Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064; in 1922 (an automobile injury action) by Woltman v. Woltman, 153 Minn. 217 , ; and in 1935, by Patenaude v. Patenaude, 195 Minn. 523 , .
  • Patenaude v. Patenaude 263 N.W. 546 Minn. 1935
  • Patenaude v. Patenaude 263 N.W. 546 Minn. 1935
    191, 116 A. S. R. 387; Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064; Woltman v. Woltman, 153 Minn. 217 , ; State v. Arnold, 182 Minn. 313 , .
  • Eschenbach v. Benjamin 263 N.W. 154 Minn. 1935
  • Eschenbach v. Benjamin 263 N.W. 154 Minn. 1935
    191, 116 A. S. R. 387; and in Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064, the court, after reviewing the cases, came to the conclusion that the rule in the Strom case should be adhered to.
  • 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
    Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , 177 N.W.
  • Woltman v. Woltman 189 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1922
  • Woltman v. Woltman 189 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1922
    This decision was approved in Drake v. Drake, 145 Minn. 388 , , 9 A. L. R. 1064, in which case it was held that a husband has no. right of action against his wife to restrain the commission of personal torts against him.