DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Warner v. Warner, 17 N.W.2d 58.

55 citing documents.

  • Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
    See, e.g., Hannuksela, d at 676 (acknowledging Minnesota’s important public policy of protecting the marital relationship); Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59, 67 , (noting that preservation of the sanctity of marriage is essential to the public welfare (citing Brockman v. Brockman, 133 Minn. 148, 151 , 157 N.W.
  • Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    McCarthy v. McCarthy, 293 Minn. 61, 66 , Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59, 68-69
  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
    McCarthy v. McCarthy, 293 Minn. 61, 66 , Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59, 68-69
  • Marriage of Oldewurtel v. Redding 421 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1988
  • Marriage of Oldewurtel v. Redding 421 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1988
    While the dissolution court’s jurisdiction is purely statutory, see Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , the trial court possesses wide discretion for those matters within its jurisdiction.
  • Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State on Behalf of McDonnell v. McCutcheon 337 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
  • State on Behalf of McDonnell v. McCutcheon 337 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
    While we assume the trial court can, in a standard URESA action, order payment of past due support to the extent the plaintiff can prove the actual amount she had reasonably expended in support of the child, Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , *652 71, Beigler v. Chamberlin, 138 Minn. 377, 379 , 165 N.W.
  • Eckert v. Eckert 216 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1974
  • Eckert v. Eckert 216 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1974
    See, also, Anderson v. Anderson, 289 Minn. 339 , Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59
  • McCarthy v. McCarthy 196 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1972
  • McCarthy v. McCarthy 196 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1972
    Having found that the decree by its ambiguity and by operation of law makes no provision for alimony, then, under the rule of law laid down by this court in Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , the trial court lacks jurisdiction to amend the original decree.
  • Anderson v. Anderson 184 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1971
  • Anderson v. Anderson 184 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1971
    In Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 , the trial court, hearing a motion to show cause why an order amend *342 ing the original decree should not be granted, found that it had been the intention of the court in issuing the original divorce decree, which said nothing about alimony, that there be no alimony of any type.
  • Grodzicki v. Quast 149 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1967
  • Grodzicki v. Quast 149 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1967
    Kienlen v. Kienlen, 227 Minn. 137 , 34 N. W. (2d) 351 , and Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 , cited by defendant, merely hold that a court’s powers in proceedings in a divorce action are limited to those conferred by statute.
  • Riley v. Riley 141 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1966
  • Riley v. Riley 141 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1966
    Gerber v. Gerber, 241 Minn. 346 , 64 N. W. (2d) 779 ; Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 ; State ex rel.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 130 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1964
  • Johnson v. Johnson 130 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1964
    “Counsel argues that the case of Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , applies.
  • Mount v. City of Redwood Falls 108 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1961
  • Eck v. Eck 90 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1958
  • Eck v. Eck 90 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1958
    2 Krusemark v. Krusemark, 232 Minn. 416 , 46 N. W. (2d) 647 ; McKey v. McKey, 228 Minn. 28 , 36 N. W. (2d) 17 ; Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 ; Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , .
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
    7 See, Botkin v. Botkin, supra; Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 .
  • Johnson v. Johnson 84 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1957
  • Johnson v. Johnson 84 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1957
    6 See, Brodsky v. Brodsky, 172 Minn. 250 , ; Webber v. Webber, supra; Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , ; Gerard v. Gerard, 216 Minn. 543 , 13 N. W. (2d) 606 ; Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 222 Minn. 279 , 24 N. W. (2d) 237 .
  • Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
  • Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
    13 Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 ; Kasal v. Kasal, 227 Minn. 529 , 35 N. W. (2d) 745 ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Markle v. Haase 73 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
  • Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 62 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1954
  • Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
  • Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
  • Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
    Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 .
  • Kate v. Kate 48 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1951
  • Kate v. Kate 48 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1951
    5 Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 .
  • Swanson v. Swanson 46 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1951
  • Swanson v. Swanson 46 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1951
    Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , ; Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , ; Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 222 Minn. 279 , 24 N. W. (2d) 237 .
  • Lieder v. Straub 42 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1950
  • 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 .
  • Boiteau v. Boiteau 33 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1948
  • Boiteau v. Boiteau 33 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1948
    It is true that in Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58 , we refused to modify a decree based upon an agreement for a settlement between the parties, made a part of the decree and which, as the court determined, was made in lieu of alimony after extensive *31 negotiations, investigations, and upon advice of counsel of both, parties.
  • Toebe v. Toebe 30 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1948
  • Toebe v. Toebe 30 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1948
    Warner v. Warner, 219 Minn. 59, 70 , 17 N. W. (2d) 58, 61 ; Hove v. Hove, 218 Minn. 612 , 16 N. W. (2d) 776 .