DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hafner v. Hafner, 54 N.W.2d 854.

34 citing documents.

  • Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, Minn. 2020
    See Hentschel v. Smith , (explaining that a consent decree “is based wholly on the consent of the parties and there is no judicial inquiry into the facts or the law applicable to the controversy”); (stating that the decree “rests on the consent of the parties” and is not a judicial determination of the parties’ rights).
  • In the Matter of: Ashley Rose Henke and o/b/o I.J.S.-H. and M.J.S.-H. v. Kidane Sante Shulbe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • In the Matter of: Ashley Rose Henke and o/b/o I.J.S.-H. and M.J.S.-H. v. Kidane Sante Shulbe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 431, (stating whether a party mistakenly consented to stipulation was question of fact).
  • Doering v. Doering 629 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Doering v. Doering 629 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (stating breach of the duty of parties to a dissolution to make full and *130 accurate disclosure constitutes fraud sufficient to set aside the judgment); Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 432 , (holding that the confidential relationship between a husband and wife imposes a duty of good faith that requires fair and full disclosure and the breach of that duty provides grounds to set aside the property division without a showing of fraud on the court); and Sanborn v. Sanborn, 5
  • Marriage of Schreck v. Schreck 445 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Schreck v. Schreck 445 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See, e.g., Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424
  • Marriage of Glorvigen v. Glorvigen 438 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Hollenkamp v. Peters 410 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Hollenkamp v. Peters 410 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 429
  • Marriage of Stolp v. Stolp 383 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Stolp v. Stolp 383 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    60.02, permitting relief from a final judgment for six different reasons; and (e) the court’s equitable powers, as illustrated by Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424
  • Marriage of Koecher v. Koecher 374 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Koecher v. Koecher 374 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Appellant points to a line of cases beginning with Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , where the court has allowed modification of property settlements because one party to the divorce failed to disclose information to the other.
  • Marriage of Egge v. Egge 361 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Egge v. Egge 361 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See, Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 429
  • Ronnkvist v. Ronnkvist 331 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1983
  • Ronnkvist v. Ronnkvist 331 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1983
    Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 432 , , (1952).
  • Fore v. Crop Hail Management 270 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1978
  • Fore v. Crop Hail Management 270 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1978
    Hughes v. Micka, 269 Minn. 268 , Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424
  • Steel v. Steel 232 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1975
  • Steel v. Steel 232 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1975
    Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
    See, Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374 , 133 N. W. (2d) 652 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Minn. 403 , 68 N. W. (2d) 398 ; Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , 54 N. W. (2d) 854 .
  • Thompson v. Nesheim 159 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1968
  • Thompson v. Nesheim 159 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1968
    This court held in Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , 54 N. W. (2d) 854 , that, as a general rule, in transactions between husband and wife there is a confidential relationship, good faith must be observed, and taking advantage of any lack of knowledge of rights is grounds for setting aside a transaction between them.
  • Hentschel v. Smith 153 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1967
  • Hentschel v. Smith 153 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1967
    In Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , 54 N. W. (2d) 854 , we said that it is within the inherent power of the court to set aside consent decrees, like judgments by confession, for fraud, mistake, or absence of real consent, citing Elsen v. State Farmers Mutual Ins.
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
    Having failed to avail himself of the procedure for reconsideration of the issue of ownership of the property, the judgment is final and conclusive.” In Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , 54 N. W. (2d) 854 , we held by a divided court that, where a divorce decree is based upon a stipulation, the decree is a consent decree to the extent of the stipulation, which may be later modified for fraud or mistake.
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
    The trial court cited Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , 54 N. W. (2d) 854 ; Elsen v. State Farmers Mutual Ins.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 68 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
  • Johnson v. Johnson 68 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
    See, Rule 60.02 of Rules of Civil Procedure; Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424 , 54 N. W. (2d) 854 .