Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wojahn v. Halter, 39 N.W.2d 545.

30 citing documents.

Herald Edward Liu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
is for the fraud and not for the debt.”
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, Minn. 2019
See Wojahn v. Halter , (“[T]he purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to speedily test the propriety of the restraint.” (emphasis added)); Northfoss v. Welch, 133 N.W.
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 782 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2010
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 782 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2010
Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 382
State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Bren 704 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Cf. Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 380-81 , -49 (1949) (noting that term “debt” as used in constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt is limited to obligations to pay money or something due and owing from one to another arising out of contract, and does not prohibit imprisonment for violation of other obligations such a
Marriage of Walker v. Walker 574 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Walker v. Walker 574 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A child support obligation, however, “is not a debt within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment , for debt.” Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 381 , quoted in Warwick, d at 679 .
Burgardt v. Burgardt 474 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Burgardt v. Burgardt 474 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 381
State v. Andrasko 454 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Andrasko 454 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Appellant however argues this case should be controlled by Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374
Marriage of Warwick v. Warwick 438 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Warwick v. Warwick 438 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 381 , (citations omitted).
Brown v. Litynski 425 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Brown v. Litynski 425 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 379-80 , (supreme court may exercise original jurisdiction in habeas petition if the lack of authority for the restraint appears on the face of the record).
State v. Errington 310 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1981
State v. Errington 310 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1981
We need not decide which approach to follow in Minnesota, but see Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374
State Ex Rel. Holm v. Tahash 139 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1965
State Ex Rel. Holm v. Tahash 139 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1965
See, also, Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374, 379 , 39 N. W. (2d) 545, 548 ; State ex rel.
Denzer v. Prendergast 126 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1964
Denzer v. Prendergast 126 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1964
Co. v. Houle, 169 Minn. 209 , , 48 A. L. R. 1266; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Renville State Bank v. Lentz, 171 Minn. 431 , ; Keys v. Schultz, 212 Minn. 109 , 2 N. W. (2d) 549 ; Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374 , 39 N. W. (2d) 545 .
Clausen v. Clausen 84 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1957
Clausen v. Clausen 84 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1957
Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374 , 39 N. W. (2d) 545 .
Wojahn v. Faul 64 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1954
Wojahn v. Faul 64 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1954
This case has been before us previously on an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer (Wojahn v. Faul, 235 Minn. 397 , 51 N. W. [2d] 97) ; and on application for habeas corpus in litigation arising out of the transaction tried in the district court of Cottonwood county (Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374 , 39 N. W. *35 [2d] 545).
Seeker v. Swenson 60 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1953
Seeker v. Swenson 60 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1953
Willis v. Utecht, 231 Minn. 568 , 42 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374 , 39 N. W. (2d) 545 ; State ex rel.
Willis v. Utecht 42 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1950
Willis v. Utecht 42 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1950
Murphy v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102 , , L. R. A. 1915B, 95; Wojahn v. Halter, 229 Minn. 374 , 39 N. W. (2d) 545 .