Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kiesow v. Kiesow, 133 N.W.2d 652.

70 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Michael Robert Jacobson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In support of this argument, she cites Kiesow v. Kiesow
A21-1725 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Whitney asserts that “divorce jurisdiction is statutory, and the district court has n o power not delegated to it by statute.”
In re the Marriage of: Mark Allen Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lee, d at 639–40; –62 (Minn. 1965); Kruschel v. Kruschel , review denied (Minn. June 27, 1985).
Marriage of Redmond v. Redmond 594 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Redmond v. Redmond 594 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 387-88 , (citations omitted).
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
See Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 389
Marriage of Phillips v. Phillips 472 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Phillips v. Phillips 472 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 380-81
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
Hand v. Kuutti 423 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hand v. Kuutti 423 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
( and Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 381 , ).
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 421 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See e.g., McCarthy v. McCarthy, 301 Minn. 270, 274 , (applying statute); Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 385 , (applying statute).
Ernst v. Ernst 408 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ernst v. Ernst 408 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
see Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 381
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
See, 2 Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 377-79 , -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
Marriage of Blomgren v. Blomgren 386 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Blomgren v. Blomgren 386 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The special concurrence interprets Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374 , to mean that in certain fact situations the change of circumstances may be measured from the time of the last order denying modification.
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 379 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 379 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 387
In re Estate of Zenor 369 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Zenor 369 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 386-87 , -62 (Minn.1965) (award of exclusive use and possession of property to wife could not be modified after the rights to the property had been litigated and the time for appealing had expired).
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.
Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 436 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 386
Marriage of Egge v. Egge 361 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Egge v. Egge 361 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
This reliance on the consent nature of the decree as an independent grounds for relief must be questioned following the court’s discussion of Hafner in Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 386, 387
Fifield v. Fifield 360 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fifield v. Fifield 360 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
11, 1984); see also Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 380 , -58 (1965).
Kleinhuizen v. Kleinhuizen 354 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kleinhuizen v. Kleinhuizen 354 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See McCarthy v. McCarthy, 301 Minn. 270, 274 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 385
Marriage of Bledsoe v. Bledsoe 344 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Bledsoe v. Bledsoe 344 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 382
Kerr v. Kerr 243 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1976
Kerr v. Kerr 243 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1976
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1976
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1976
Johnson v. Johnson, 304 Minn. 583 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374
Johnson v. Johnson 232 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1975
Johnson v. Johnson 232 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1975
Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374
Hennessy v. Stelton 224 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1974
Hennessy v. Stelton 224 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1974
Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374
In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
See, Posselt v. Posselt, 271 Minn. 575 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374 , Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190
McCarthy v. McCarthy 222 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1974
McCarthy v. McCarthy 222 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1974
Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374