DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thompson v. Thompson, 55 N.W.2d 329.

33 citing documents.

  • In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • In Re the Custody of: X. W. F., Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • In Re the Welfare of D.J.N. 568 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • In Re the Welfare of D.J.N. 568 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    See Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41, 47 , (holding that in a custody proceeding, parent should have opportunity to cross examine and refute testimony and recommendations in social agency reports).
  • Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi 485 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41, 43-44 , (quoting a rule stated in 27 C.J.S.
  • Marriage of Hovland v. Hovland 403 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Hovland v. Hovland 403 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that custody modification orders based upon social services investigations must be founded upon a hearing in which witnesses may be cross-examined, Stanford v. Stanford, 266 Minn. 250 , Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , these cases do not apply here.
  • Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41, 47
  • Marriage of Hegerle v. Hegerle 355 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Marriage of Hegerle v. Hegerle 355 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, absent waiver, an order modifying a custody decree must be based upon an evidentiary hearing.
  • Marriage of Hummel v. Hummel 304 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1981
  • Marriage of Hummel v. Hummel 304 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1981
    In Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , this court reviewed the trial court’s implementation of the progenitor of Minn.Stat.
  • State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Devins 200 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1972
  • State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Devins 200 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1972
    In Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41, 47 , we said: “We'believe that the rule should be, where there has been no waiver of the right, that an order * * * to change the custody of children should be based upon a hearing in which witnesses may be cross-examined and in which a record is made which effectively may be reviewed on
  • Tureson v. Tureson 160 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1968
  • Tureson v. Tureson 160 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1968
    They cite Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 , for the proposition that an order changing the custody of children should be based upon a hearing in which witnesses may be cross-examined and in which a record is made which effectively may be reviewed on appeal.
  • Stanford v. Stanford 123 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1963
  • Stanford v. Stanford 123 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1963
    Claims are frequently made therein with respect to plaintiff’s conduct, the only basis for which appears to be hearsay statements, such as “according to reports,” “the school report indicated,” and “we have reports.” In Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 , with respect to the considerations to be given reports of this kind, we quoted with approval 27 C. J. S., Divorce, § 317c(6), now included in 27B C. J. S., Divorce, § 317(8), as follows ( 238 Minn. 44 , 55 N. W. [2d] 331):
  • Oltmanns v. Oltmanns 121 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1963
  • Oltmanns v. Oltmanns 121 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1963
    We stated in Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41, 47 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 , 332: “We believe that the rule should be, where there has been no waiver of the right, that an order amending a divorce decree so as to change the custody of children should be based upon a hearing in which witnesses may be cross-examined and in which a record is made which effectively may be
  • Gumphrey v. Gumphrey 115 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1962
  • Gumphrey v. Gumphrey 115 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1962
    Plaintiff claims, however, that even so the party seeking a change in custody has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence facts warranting such a change, citing, among other cases, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 .
  • Saturnini v. Saturnini 110 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1961
  • Saturnini v. Saturnini 110 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1961
    In Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41, 47 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329, 332 , we held that the failure of the trial court to take oral testimony on a motion to change the custody of minor children was not only an abuse of discretion but deprived the litigants of an absolute right, stating: “* * * If, in the trial of an action for divorce, the fitness of a parent t
  • Cummiskey v. Cummiskey 107 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1961
  • Cummiskey v. Cummiskey 107 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1961
    Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 ; Stoll v. Stoll, 243 Minn. 510 , 68 N. W. (2d) 367 .
  • Gannon v. Gannon 102 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1960
  • Gannon v. Gannon 102 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1960
    Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 .
  • Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co. 76 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1956
  • Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co. 76 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1956
    13 See, Roske v. Ilykanyics, 232 Minn. 383 , 45 N. W. (2d) 769 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 238 Minn. 41 , 55 N. W. (2d) 329 ; see, also, Jensen v. Dikel, 244 Minn. 71 , 69 N. W. (2d) 108 .