DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mark v. Mark, 80 N.W.2d 621.

46 citing documents.

  • In Re Paternity of JMV 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Valento v. Swenson 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Valento v. Swenson 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 451
  • In Re Paternity of JMV 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 451
  • Bock v. Bock 506 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Bock v. Bock 506 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 450-51 , -25 (1957).
  • Ganyo v. Engen 446 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Ganyo v. Engen 446 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    (citing Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 449 , ).
  • Marriage of Rapacke v. Rapacke 442 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Rapacke v. Rapacke 442 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 449
  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 417 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 417 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 450
  • County of Ramsey v. Faulhaber 399 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • County of Ramsey v. Faulhaber 399 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The supreme court in Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , stated: Despite many sweeping statements to the contrary, a trial court obviously does not, and cannot, wholly ignore the needs of innocent children who are born of a divorced husband’s remarriage.
  • Marriage of Crampton v. Crampton 356 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Marriage of Crampton v. Crampton 356 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 449
  • Epstein v. Epstein 268 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1978
  • Epstein v. Epstein 268 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1978
    E. g., Bissell v. Bissell, 291 Minn. 348 , Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446
  • Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
  • Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446
  • Peterson v. Peterson 231 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1975
  • Peterson v. Peterson 231 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1975
    Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 295 Minn. 29 , Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446
  • Anderson v. Anderson 225 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1975
  • Anderson v. Anderson 225 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1975
    LaBelle v. LaBelle, 302 Minn. 98 , Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446
  • Rubenstein v. Rubenstein 202 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1972
  • Rubenstein v. Rubenstein 202 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1972
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , McKey v. McKey, 228 Minn. 28
  • Bissell v. Bissell 191 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1971
  • Bissell v. Bissell 191 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1971
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , McKey v. McKey, 228 Minn. 28
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
    See, *180 Kiesow v. Kiesow, supra; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551 .
  • Tammen v. Tammen 182 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1970
  • Tammen v. Tammen 182 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1970
    Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374 , 133 N. W. (2d) 652 ; Mund v. Mund, 252 Minn. 442 , 90 N. W. (2d) 309 ; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 .
  • Moss v. Moss 143 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1966
  • Moss v. Moss 143 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1966
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 449 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621, 624 .
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
  • Kiesow v. Kiesow 133 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
    The applicable rules respecting the exercise of the authority granted by this statutory provision are well stated in Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 449 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621, 624 , where we said: “A petition to modify the alimony provisions of the divorce decree is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and, although its discretionary power of modification is to be exercised with great caution and only upon clear proof of facts showing that the circumstan
  • Michalson v. Michalson 116 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1962
  • Michalson v. Michalson 116 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1962
    Larkin v. Larkin, 261 Minn. 414 , 113 N. W. (2d) 75 ; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Plankers v. Plankers, 178 Minn. 31 , ; Mansfield v. Mansfield, 230 Minn. 574 , 42 N. W. (2d) 315 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 255 Minn. 270 , 96 N. W. (2d) 547 .
  • Larkin v. Larkin 113 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1962
  • Larkin v. Larkin 113 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1962
    Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Plankers v. Plankers, 178 Minn. 31 , ; Mansfield v. Mansfield, 230 Minn. 574 , 42 N. W. (2d) 315 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 255 Minn. 270 , 96 N. W. (2d) 547 .
  • Senn v. Senn 95 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1959
  • Senn v. Senn 95 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1959
    Novotny v. Novotny, 152 Minn; 420, ; Menke v. Menke, 213 Minn. 311 , 6 N. W. (2d) 470 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 406 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551, 555 ; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367 .
  • Mund v. Mund 90 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1958
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
  • Hellman v. Hellman 84 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1957
    5 Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Botkin v. Botkin, supra.