DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Louden v. Louden, 22 N.W.2d 164.

91 citing documents.

  • State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
    746 n. 1 (Minn.1998); Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on *720 appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).
  • Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 503 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Louden [v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 ] 339, d [164] 166 (citations omitted).
  • Balder v. Haley 399 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1987
  • Balder v. Haley 399 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1987
    Notably, in Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , the rule is stated that: “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Id.
  • Bertrand v. API, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1985
  • Bertrand v. API, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1985
    Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 189, n. 2 , n. 2 (1976); Pautz v. American Insurance Co., 268 Minn. 241, 251-52 , Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536, 537
  • In Re Estate of Boysen 351 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Co., 221 Minn. 396, 397-98 , (quoting State v. Prickett, 221 Minn. 179, 182 , ).
  • Melina v. Chaplin 327 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1982
  • Melina v. Chaplin 327 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1982
    Pautz v. American Insurance Co., 268 Minn. 241, 251-52 , Haugen v. Swanson, 222 Minn. 203, 207 , Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , , *21 166 (1946); Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536, 537
  • Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake 310 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1981
  • Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake 310 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1981
    See Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 340
  • Pautz v. American Insurance Co. 128 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1964
  • Pautz v. American Insurance Co. 128 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1964
    Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536 , 18 N. W. (2d) 312 ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Haugen v. Swanson, 222 Minn. 203 , 23 N. W. (2d) 535 .
  • Kelley v. Kelley 112 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1962
  • Kelley v. Kelley 112 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1962
    Lamberton v. Lamberton, 229 Minn. 29 , 38 N. W. (2d) 72 ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 ; Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, 255 Minn. 80 , 96 N. W. (2d) 14 .
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
    See, Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 .
  • Simberg v. Simberg 94 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1959
  • Simberg v. Simberg 94 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1959
    Wilson v. Wilson, 229 Minn. 126 , 38 N. W. (2d) 154 ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Visneski v. Visneski, 219 Minn. 217 , 17 N. W. (2d) 313 ; Gerard v. Gerard, 216 Minn. 543 , 13 N. W. (2d) 606 ; Locksted v. Locksted, 208 Minn. 551 , ; Graml v. Graml, 184 Minn. 324 , .
  • Johnson v. Johnson 84 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1957
  • Johnson v. Johnson 84 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1957
    1 Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Potter v. Potter, 224 Minn. 29 , 27 N. W. (2d) 784 .
  • Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
  • Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
    19 Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 .
  • Albertson v. Albertson 67 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1954
  • Albertson v. Albertson 67 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1954
    9 Wilson v. Wilson, 229 Minn. 126 , 38 N. W. (2d) 154 ; Arp v. Arp, 229 Minn. 6 , 38 N. W. (2d) 67 ; Potter v. Potter, 224 Minn. 29 , 27 N. W. (2d) 784 ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; see, 35 Minn. L. Rev. 168 , 177 to 178.
  • Gerber v. Gerber 64 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1954
  • Gerber v. Gerber 64 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1954
    Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 .
  • Wilson v. Wilson 38 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1949
  • Wilson v. Wilson 38 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1949
    Ellingson v. Ellingson, supra; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Mullen v. Mullen, 135 Minn. 179 , ; Martinson v. Martinson, 116 Minn. 128 , .
  • Arp v. Arp 38 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1949
  • Arp v. Arp 38 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1949
    Suffice it to say that in our opinion plaintiff’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated under the rule laid down in Graml v. Graml, supra, and followed in Gerard v. Gerard, 216 Minn. 543 , 13 N. W. (2d) 606 ; Visneski v. Visneski, 219 Minn. 217 , 17 N. W. (2d) 313 ; Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Potter v. Potter, 224 Minn. 29 , 27 N. W. (2d) 784 .
  • Thompson v. Thompson 35 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1948
  • Thompson v. Thompson 35 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1948
    Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Crowley v. Crowley, 219 Minn. 341 , 18 N. W. (2d) 40 ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Baker v. Baker 28 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1947
  • Baker v. Baker 28 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1947
    In Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 342 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164, 167 , we held: “* * * The power of the court to revise a decree for alimony is very broad and gives the defendant [wife] ample protection if her future needs, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, justify a revision.
  • Motzko Ex Rel. Shook v. Motzko 22 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 1946
  • Motzko Ex Rel. Shook v. Motzko 22 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 1946
    ill.” There is only one issue here to be decided, namely, whether the court’s findings are sustained by the evidence, since, as we have •often definitely held: “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164, 166 , and cases there cited.
  • Trutnau v. Trutnau 22 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1946
  • Trutnau v. Trutnau 22 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1946
    For the reasons stated in Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338 , 22 N. W. (2d) 164 , we allow plaintiff only $150 as attorney’s fees on this appeal in addition to her regular costs and disbursements.