DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Botkin v. Botkin, 77 N.W.2d 172.

24 citing documents.

  • Lee v. Lee 775 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2009
  • Lee v. Lee 775 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2009
    Rather, the obligee can expect a sum that will “[keep] with the circumstances and living standards of the parties at the time of the divorce.” Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25, 29 , -67 (Minn.1979); But here, the district court found that Elaine required $1,950 monthly to cover her reasonable needs and received $1,674.14 monthly in income from all sources before she received any maintenance.
  • Marriage of Yeager v. Yeager 405 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Yeager v. Yeager 405 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The issue involves a study of the parties’ present circumstances and the circumstances “in which they found themselves when the decree was rendered.” Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25, 28 , (citations omitted).
  • Marriage of Angelos v. Angelos 367 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1985
  • Marriage of Angelos v. Angelos 367 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1985
    Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 380-81 , Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , Plankers v. Plankers, 173 Minn. 464 , 217 N.W.
  • Abuzzahab v. Abuzzahab 359 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1984
  • Marriage of Otis v. Otis 299 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1980
  • Arundel v. Arundel 281 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1979
  • Arundel v. Arundel 281 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1979
    See, Cooper v. Cooper, 298 Minn. 247 , Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25
  • 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
  • Rubenstein v. Rubenstein 202 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1972
  • Rubenstein v. Rubenstein 202 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1972
    Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173
  • Posch v. Posch 135 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1965
  • Posch v. Posch 135 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1965
    See, Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 , 121 N. W. (2d) 77 ; Druck v. Druck, 258 Minn. 114 , 103 N. W. (2d) 123 .
  • 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 .
  • 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 .
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
    4 Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 ; Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 .
  • Mark v. Mark 80 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1957
  • Mark v. Mark 80 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1957
    2 Kate v. Kate, supra; Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.