DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnston v. Johnston, 158 N.W.2d 249.

39 citing documents.

  • In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    See, (stating that “cases involving family law fall within the district court’s original jurisdiction” because “[f]amily dissolution remedies, including remedies in child support decisions, rely on the district court’s inherent equitable powers”); (noting that “[s]ince the jurisdiction of the district court in divorce actions is equitable, relief may be awarded as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require”).
  • In re the Marriage of: Andrew James Carl Trupe v. Christin Marie Sohns Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In re the Marriage of: Andrew James Carl Trupe v. Christin Marie Sohns Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    le their bank accounts because [Trupe] thought it would help keep the wedding expenses from becoming out of control and leave money for a downpayment on a house.” The district court further found that “both parties understood the wedding expenses were a joint obligation.” In ordering Trupe to reimburse Sohns for a portion of the wedding expenses, the district court cited Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86, for the proposition that district courts have inherent authority to grant equitable re
  • In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    asonable to all”); -58 (Minn. 1981) (“Although dissolution is a statutory action and the authority of the [district] court is limited to that provided for by statute, the district courts are guided by equitable principles in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties upon a dissolution of the marriage relationship.”); Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86, (“Since the jurisdiction of the district court in divorce actions is equitable, relief may be awarded as the facts in each partic
  • Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Minnesota courts have invoked their inherent power to grant equitable relief “as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require.” Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , (finding district court has inherent power in family law cases to grant relief as facts and equities require); State ex rel.
  • Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
  • Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
    Cf. Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , (distinguishing a court's inherent powers to do equity).
  • Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , see also In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491 , (contempt is part of court’s inherent power, independent of statute).
  • Marriage of LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz 547 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Marriage of LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz 547 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    A district court has equitable jurisdiction in dissolution actions, and “relief may be awarded as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require.” (quoting Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , ) (trial court prevented inequity by finding that, although father had not paid child support, father had satisfied his child support obligation by providing for the care and support of the children living with him), review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • Marriage of Karypis v. Karypis 458 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Followed Marriage of Karypis v. Karypis 458 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    A district court has equitable jurisdiction in dissolution actions, and “relief may be awarded as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require.” Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86
  • In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The trial court has the power to grant equitable relief “as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require.” (quoting Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , ).
  • Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 440 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 440 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    ct courts are guided by equitable principles in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties upon a dissolution of the marriage relationship, * * * [and] the district court therefore has inherent power to grant equitable relief “as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require.” (quoting Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , ).
  • Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86
  • Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 400 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Nelson v. Nelson 400 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86
  • Nelson v. Nelson 384 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Nelson v. Nelson 384 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86
  • Scott v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Scott v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86
  • Marriage of DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa 309 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1981
  • Marriage of DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa 309 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1981
    The district court therefore has inherent power to grant equitable relief “as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require.” See Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86
  • Gilbertson v. Gilbertson 220 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1974
  • Gilbertson v. Gilbertson 220 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1974
    It is appropriate to repeat the admonition we set forth in Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , : “* * * While the court may consider the comparative fault of the parties as an element in fixing the amount of alimony and division of property (Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , ), we caution that such awards are made not as a penalty but as a substitute for the husba
  • In Re Discipline of Drexler 188 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1971
  • In Re Discipline of Drexler 188 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1971
    4 In the appeal to this court, Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , 158 N. W. (2d) 249, 253 , we declined to set aside the decree but noted: “There is no doubt, nonetheless, that the conduct of plaintiff and his attorney in serving process immediately after the stipulation was signed in violation of its express terms and in the subsequent swift perfection of the divorce with all
  • Bollenbach v. Bollenbach 175 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1970
  • Bollenbach v. Bollenbach 175 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1970
    Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81 , 158 N. W. (2d) 249 .
  • Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
  • Vandewege v. Vandewege 170 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1969
    Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , ; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282, 288 , 84 N. W. (2d) 249, 254 ; Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , 146 N. W. (2d) 181 ; Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81 , 158 N. W. (2d) 249 .