Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baskerville v. Baskerville, 75 N.W.2d 762.

64 citing documents.

A22-1469 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(concluding a party waives the right to remove a judge by proceeding without a timely assertion of the right); (stating that party failing to remove a judge before the start of trial waives the opportunity to do so as of right).
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he court shall exercise its power with liberality in issuing orders which justice requires for the protection of parties or witnesses from unreasonable annoyance, e xpense, embarrassment, or oppression.”
Jake Anthony Scharber-Pikula, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This fundamental right may be waived by failure to seasonably assert it.” Id.; see Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 501, (“A litigant who, in the absence of fraud or other controlling circumstance, elects to go to trial without taking timely and appropriate action to disqualify a judge for bias waives his right to assert such bias.”).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 501, (“A litigant who, in the absence of fraud or other controlling circumst ance, elects to go to trial without taking timely and appropriate action to disqualify a judge for bias waives his right to assert such 3 During oral argument, respo
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Below, Michelle L. MacDonald v. David Victor Rucki, Linda Olup, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Below, Michelle L. MacDonald v. David Victor Rucki, Linda Olup, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court “has a wide discretion as to the means to be employed in protecting the parties and witnesses.” Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
P. 26.03; see also Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 506
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
Christensen v. Eggen 562 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cf. Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 501 , (where defendant took no action to disqualify substituted judge for bias, court stated: “[a] litigant who * * * elects to go to trial without taking timely and appropriate action to disqualify a judge for bias waives his right to assert such bias”).
Ciriacy v. Ciriacy 431 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ciriacy v. Ciriacy 431 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
Erickson v. MacArthur 414 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1987
Erickson v. MacArthur 414 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1987
Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
Nachtsheim v. Wartnick 411 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nachtsheim v. Wartnick 411 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
63.03; Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496
Tibbetts v. Crossroads, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tibbetts v. Crossroads, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny discovery requests, see Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507 , and its decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.
Connolly v. Commissioner of Public Safety 373 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Connolly v. Commissioner of Public Safety 373 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
State v. Carlson 369 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Carlson 369 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Id.; see Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 501
Narveson v. White 355 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Narveson v. White 355 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See, e.g., Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507 , -70 (1950).
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi 294 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1980
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi 294 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1980
2, and Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , would have required that appellant make an affirmative showing of prejudice.
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1976
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1976
the result frequently of a series of circumstances so complicated as to defy accurate fault assessment.” 9 As we stated in Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354, 360 , : “* * * It does not seem likely that marital harmony will be promoted if a wife may drive her husband from her without prejudice to her claim for alimony and property.” See, also, Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Cooper v. Cooper 214 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1974
Cooper v. Cooper 214 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1974
Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 507
Burns v. Stewart 188 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1971
Burns v. Stewart 188 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1971
The trial judge in his memorandum cites Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 , as authority for his order.
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach 175 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1970
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach 175 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1970
See, Baskerville v. Basker-ville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 .
Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
In Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 , we simply pointed out that the wife’s misconduct may be so grave that alimony may be fixed without attempting to apportion the husband’s estate on a percentage basis.
Christenson v. Christenson 162 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1968
Christenson v. Christenson 162 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1968
In Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 , this court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure are fully applicable to divorce proceedings insofar as such rules are not inconsistent or in conflict with the statutes.
UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Peterson 160 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1968
UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Peterson 160 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1968
Cf. Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 505 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762, 768 .
Borchert v. Borchert 154 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1967
Borchert v. Borchert 154 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1967
The later cases *21 respecting this subject are collected in Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 , 1 and Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 .
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller 135 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1965
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller 135 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1965
Webster v. Schwartz, 249 Minn. 224 , 81 N. W. (2d) 867 ; Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 .