DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baker v. Baker, 28 N.W.2d 164.

28 citing documents.

  • Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
  • Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
    Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387 , Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117
  • Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
  • Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
    Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282, 288 , 84 N. W. (2d) 249, 254 ; Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , 146 N. W. (2d) 181 ; Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81 , 158 N. W. (2d) 249 .
  • Kucera v. Kucera 146 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1966
  • Kucera v. Kucera 146 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1966
    See, Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387 , 35 N. W. (2d) 542 , 6 A. L. R. (2d) 176.
  • Stephenson v. Stephenson 104 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1960
  • Stephenson v. Stephenson 104 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1960
    Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387 , 35 N. W. (2d) 542 , 6 A. L. R. (2d) 176; Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536 , 18 N. W. (2d) 312 ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 .
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
    Eck v. Eck, 252 Minn. 290 , 90 N. W. (2d) 211 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282 , 84 N. W. (2d) 249 ; Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. *91 422, 84 N. W. (2d) 367 ; Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 ; Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 ; Krusemark v. Krusemark, 232 Minn. 416 , 46 N. W. (2d) 647 ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 84 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1957
  • Johnson v. Johnson 84 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1957
    In Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 121 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164, 167 , this court pointed out that: “In determining the amount of property to be decreed out of the husband’s estate to the wife pursuant to § 518.22, the trial court may properly take into consideration the entire value of any property held by the parties in joint tenancy when it appears that
  • Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
  • Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
    20 Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 ; see, Annotations, 9 A. L. R. (2d) 1026, 34 A. L. R. (2d) 313, 330 to 335, and 82 A. L. R. 539.
  • Kate v. Kate 48 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1951
  • Kate v. Kate 48 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1951
    Compare awards made in Potter v. Potter, 224 Minn. 29 , 27 N. W. (2d) 784 ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Hempel v. Hempel, 225 Minn. 287 , 30 N. W. (2d) 594 ; and Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 .
  • Swanson v. Swanson 46 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1951
  • Swanson v. Swanson 46 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1951
    In Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387, 400 , 35 N. W. (2d) 542, 550 , 6 A. L. R. (2d) 176, this court stated: “* * * While the statute authorizes an award of one-third of the husband’s property and income, it does not follow in every case that one-third thereof should be awarded.” In Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 120 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164, 167 , this court stated: • “M. S. A. § 518.22, prescribes the limitations within which the trial court must exercise its discretion in awarding alimony and in decreei
  • Caskey v. Lewandowski 46 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1951
  • Caskey v. Lewandowski 46 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1951
    2 Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 390 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; National Pole & Treating Co. v. Gilkey, 182 Minn. 21 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Ellingson v. Ellingson, 227 Minn. 149 , 34 N. W. (2d) 356 .
  • Krusemark v. Krusemark 46 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1951
  • Krusemark v. Krusemark 46 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1951
    Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Burke v. Burke, 208 Minn. 1 , .
  • Lamberton v. Lamberton 38 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1949
  • Lamberton v. Lamberton 38 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1949
    In Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 120 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164, 167 , this court said: “* * * Obviously, as an appellate court, we cannot determine issues of fact de novo, but must accept any awards for alimony and for the adjudication of property rights unless, in the light of the evidence as a whole, it appears that the trial court has abused its discre
  • Loth v. Loth 35 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1949
  • Loth v. Loth 35 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1949
    In Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 120, 122 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164, 167 , we said: *393 “* * * Obviously, as an appellate court, we cannot determine issues of fact de novo, but must accept any awards for alimony and for the adjudication of property rights unless, in the light of the evidence as a whole, it appears that the trial court has abused its disc
  • Ellingson v. Ellingson 34 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1948
  • Ellingson v. Ellingson 34 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1948
    Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 .