DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ostrander v. Ostrander, 252 N.W. 449.

25 citing documents.

  • Chad Monson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. The 401 Group, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. The 401 Group, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    But “a remedy at law which is 7 practically ineffective is not an adequate remedy.” Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549, 252 N.W.
  • Fieseler Masonry, Inc. v. City of Mabel, Exact Construction Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Fieseler Masonry, Inc. v. City of Mabel, Exact Construction Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Fieseler Masonry argues that, even if it had a contract with Exact, a breach-of-contract action is not an adequate remedy because Exact is “out 8 of business.” “[A] remedy at law which is practically ineffective is not an adequate remedy.” Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549, 252 N.W.
  • Petition of Nelson 495 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
  • Petition of Nelson 495 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
    1 (citing Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549 , 252 N.W.
  • Melamed v. Melamed 286 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1979
  • Melamed v. Melamed 286 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1979
    Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547 , 252 N.W.
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
    2 See, Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547 , ; Sivertsen v. Sivertsen, 198 Minn. 207 , .
  • Atwood v. Atwood 91 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1958
  • Atwood v. Atwood 91 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1958
    In Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549 , , this court said: “We need not consider what the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution (art. IV, § 1) does or does not require.
  • Lieder v. Straub 42 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1950
  • Lieder v. Straub 42 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1950
    Under our decision in Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547 , , the judgment based on the Wisconsin decree is enforceable here according to our law.
  • Kienlen v. Kienlen 34 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1948
  • Kienlen v. Kienlen 34 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1948
    Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59, 67 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58, 62 ; Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549 , ; Sivertsen v. Sivertsen, 198 Minn. 207 , ; see, State v. Armington, 25 Minn. 29, 37 .
  • Larsen v. Erickson 24 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1946
  • Larsen v. Erickson 24 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1946
    We have said that “In the United States all divorce jurisdiction is statutory”; also, that as to divorce “our district court has no power in the premises not delegated to it by statute.” Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549 , .
  • Warner v. Warner 17 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1944
  • Warner v. Warner 17 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1944
    * * *” “In the United States all divorce jurisdiction is statutory.”Our district court has in such matters only the powers “delegated to it by statute.” Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549 , ; Sivertsen v. Sivertsen, 198 Minn. 207, 210 , .
  • Ladd v. Martineau 285 N.W. 281 Minn. 1939
  • Ladd v. Martineau 285 N.W. 281 Minn. 1939
    The position which we thus adopt is closely analogous to that taken by this court in the case of Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547 , , where it was held that a district court of this state has power to alloAv the extraordinary remedies provided by our statutes for the enforcement of alimony decrees to compel payment of a judgment for unpaid alimony obtained in this *137 state in an action based on an alimony decree of a sister
  • Sivertsen v. Sivertsen 269 N.W. 413 Minn. 1936
  • Sivertsen v. Sivertsen 269 N.W. 413 Minn. 1936
    Divorce jurisdiction is statutory; * '* our district court has no power in the premises not delegated to it by statute.” Ostrander v. Ostrander, 190 Minn. 547, 549 , .