DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kate v. Kate, 48 N.W.2d 551.

31 citing documents.

  • Mario A. Ruiz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    at 650; ( stating that district court may deny motion for continuance if movant fails to exercise due diligence in attempting to secure evidence).
  • Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 410
  • Marriage of Hamilton v. Hamilton 396 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Hamilton v. Hamilton 396 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn 402
  • Sieber v. Sieber 258 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1977
  • Sieber v. Sieber 258 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1977
    See, Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402
  • Dunshee v. Douglas 255 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1977
  • Dunshee v. Douglas 255 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1977
    Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402
  • Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
  • Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
    We stated in Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180 , : “The fact that the financial rights and obligations of the parties have been fixed in the divorce decree as a result of stipulation is an important consideration restraining, although not controlling, the court’s authority.” See, Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 408 , Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28
  • In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
  • In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
    Language in Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , indicates that there may be no equivocation — the change must have occurred, not merely be a future possibility.
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
    See, *180 Kiesow v. Kiesow, supra; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 .
  • Corcoran v. Perry 162 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1968
  • Corcoran v. Perry 162 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1968
    Mrs. Corcoran did not know the name of the company from which she bought the insurance, but she said that “Jack [her husband] can tell you that.” See, Ford v. Kline Oldsmobile, Inc. 274 Minn. 284 , 143 N. W. (2d) 209 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 .
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
    See, for instance, Larkin v. Larkin, 261 Minn. 414 , 113 N. W. (2d) 75 ; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 .
  • Senn v. Senn 95 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1959
  • Senn v. Senn 95 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1959
    Novotny v. Novotny, 152 Minn; 420, ; Menke v. Menke, 213 Minn. 311 , 6 N. W. (2d) 470 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 406 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551, 555 ; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367 .
  • Mund v. Mund 90 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1958
  • Mund v. Mund 90 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1958
    Fruen v. Fruen, 228 Minn. 391 , 37 N. W. (2d) 417 ; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458 , ; Randall v. Randall, 181 Minn. 18 , ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 ; Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 .
  • Eck v. Eck 90 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1958
  • Eck v. Eck 90 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1958
    In Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 409 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551, 556 , this court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Loring, said: “The evidence as a whole, and particularly defendant’s own evidence, clearly demonstrated that such disparity of wealth as exists between these parties is due principally to plaintiff’s industry and thrift on the one hand and
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
    6 Mark v. Mark, supra; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 .
  • Mark v. Mark 80 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1957
  • Mark v. Mark 80 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1957
    1 Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 406 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551, 554 ; McKey v. McKey, 228 Minn. 28 , 36 N. W. (2d) 17 ; Hagen v. Hagen, 212 Minn. 488 , 4 N. W. (2d) 100 ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Botkin v. Botkin 77 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1956
  • Botkin v. Botkin 77 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1956
    Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 406 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551, 555 .