Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Saturnini v. Saturnini, 110 N.W.2d 480.

30 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Sandra Kay Vogt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Due process requires that a heari ng be “fair, practicable, and reasonable.” Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 498
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
As our supreme court has noted, “a party is not entitled, as a matter of right to have a motion involving an issue of fact heard and tried on the oral testimony of witnesses.” Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 496, (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Archie Kunshier Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 496
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Allan aka Peter Allan George Minn. Ct. App. 2017
record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.” The supreme court has stated that “the use of oral testimony upon the hearing of a motion has been said to be discretionary with the [district] court and not a matter of right.” Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 496
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Bergstrom, d at 789 (noting the “procedural safeguards” such as “notice, an adversarial hearing in the district court, and the opportunity for appellate review that adequately protect [the appellant’s] liberty interest”); Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 498, (“Due process requires that the hearing be fair, practicable, and reasonable.”).
Long v. Creighton 670 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Long v. Creighton 670 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
at 297 (quoting Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 498 , ).
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Due process requires that a hearing be “fair, practicable, and reasonable.” Sat urnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 498
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
43.05 (trial court role in directing scope of evidence); Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 496 , (quoting Strom v. Montana Cent.
Stevens County Social Service Department Ex. Rel. Banken v. Banken 403 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stevens County Social Service Department Ex. Rel. Banken v. Banken 403 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-57 (1965) (obligee obtained 3 orders to show cause over a 6-year period, each time requesting only that support and maintenance be increased); Johnson v. Johnson, 269 Minn. 253, 255 , (when obligor inherited property after final divorce decree, obligee obtained an order to show cause to get an order for maintenance and to get increased support); Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 494-95 , (by way of order to show cause, obligee sought to increase child support).
Marriage of Savoren v. Savoren 386 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Savoren v. Savoren 386 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[T]he use of oral testimony upon the hearing of a motion has been said to be discretionary with the trial court and not a matter of right.” Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 496 , (citations omitted).
Marriage of Moberg v. Moberg 374 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Moberg v. Moberg 374 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Due process requires that a hearing be “fair, practicable, and reasonable.” Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 498
Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 365 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 365 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494
Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 496 , (quoting Strom v. Montana Cent.
Marriage of Gordon v. Gordon 356 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Gordon v. Gordon 356 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
43.05; Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494
Sieber v. Sieber 258 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1977
Sieber v. Sieber 258 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1977
Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494
Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
In Saturnini v. Saturnini, 260 Minn. 494, 498 , 110 N. W. (2d) 480, 483 , this court made the statement that modification of support payments “generally requires only a showing of change in either need on the one side or ability to pay on the other.” This language, however, was wholly dictum, made in the *183 course of holding, as a matter of procedure, that

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by