DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

64 citing documents.

  • Silverness v. Silverness 134 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1965
  • Silverness v. Silverness 134 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1965
    See, Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282 , 84 N. W. (2d) 249 ; Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 ; Krusemark v. Krusemark, 232 Minn. 416 , 46 N. W. (2d) 647 ; Potter v. Potter, 224 Minn. 29 , 27 N. W. (2d) 784 .
  • Cloutier v. Cloutier 112 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1961
  • Cloutier v. Cloutier 112 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1961
    ation of the issues in the case, the amount of alimony or support money, if any, awarded in the judgment, the manner by which said property was acquired and the persons paying or supplying the consideration therefor, the charges or liens imposed thereon to secure payment of alimony or support money, and all the facts and circumstances of the case.” *330 Plaintiff cites Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 508 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762, 770 , in support of the proposition that: “* * * the delinqu
  • Johnson v. Johnson 97 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1959
  • Johnson v. Johnson 97 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1959
    In order to counteract these claims, petitioners offered a part of the record before this court in Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 .
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
    Eck v. Eck, 252 Minn. 290 , 90 N. W. (2d) 211 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282 , 84 N. W. (2d) 249 ; Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. *91 422, 84 N. W. (2d) 367 ; Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 ; Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354 , 46 N. W. (2d) 878 ; Krusemark v. Krusemark, 232 Minn. 416 , 46 N. W. (2d) 647 ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Eck v. Eck 90 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1958
  • Eck v. Eck 90 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1958
    We do not think that the cases cited in support of plaintiff’s position on this issue, which include Morrissey v. Morrissey, 172 Minn. 72 , ; Naffke v. Naffke, 240 Minn. 468 , 62 N. W. (2d) 63 ; and Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. *298 (2d) 762, are controlling.
  • 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 .
  • Webster v. Schwartz 81 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1957
  • Webster v. Schwartz 81 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1957
    1 In Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N. W. (2d) 762 , this court pointed out that Rule 34 is expressly made subject to Rule 30.02.