Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Borchert v. Borchert, 154 N.W.2d 902.

65 citing documents.

Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Patricia Annette Wallace, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Patricia Annette Wallace, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
119.01-02 (requiring detailed documentation supporting attorney fees requests); see also Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21-22, -07 (1967) (remanding for reconsideration of award of attorney fees based on additional and more particular evidence of “the amount of work done and the value of the services rendered”).
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Niemi v. Schachtschneider 435 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Niemi v. Schachtschneider 435 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
An award of attorney fees “rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and normally will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Sinsabaugh v. Heinerscheid 428 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Sinsabaugh v. Heinerscheid 428 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 19-20 , Schultz, 266 Minn. at 208 , d at 121 ; see Sefkow III, d at 140 .
Marriage of Volesky v. Volesky 412 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Volesky v. Volesky 412 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Borchert v. Borehert, 279 Minn. 16, 19-20
Marriage of Currey v. Currey 393 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Currey v. Currey 393 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See also Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , (trial court improperly awarded attorney’s fees without adequate proof of value of counsel’s services).
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The awarding of attorney’s fees is a decision within the “discretion of the trial court and normally will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Farrar v. Farrar 383 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Farrar v. Farrar 383 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cf. Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21 , (evidence consisting of a letter and statement itemizing work but without specific values on each item was insufficient proof of value of services).
Effinger v. State 380 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1986
Effinger v. State 380 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1986
See Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 19
Marriage of Quade v. Quade 367 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Quade v. Quade 367 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The amount to be allowed a party’s attorney “rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and normally will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Marriage of Linderman v. Linderman 364 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Linderman v. Linderman 364 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 19-20
Lamb v. Jordan 363 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lamb v. Jordan 363 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Katz & Lange, Ltd. v. Beugen 356 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Katz & Lange, Ltd. v. Beugen 356 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , the court held that “a letter and a statement itemizing, without placing a value thereon, some of the work done by defendant’s counsel” was not sufficient proof of the value of the services.
Marriage of Schack v. Schack 354 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Schack v. Schack 354 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Christopher, 305 Minn. 226, 237-38 , -05 (1975); Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 19
Marriage of March v. Crockarell 354 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Distinguished Marriage of March v. Crockarell 354 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , this issue was remanded because there was little, if any, evidence as to the value of services performed by the wife’s attorney, yet the trial court awarded her $6,000 in attorney fees.
Marriage of Heard v. Heard 353 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Heard v. Heard 353 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16
In Re the Marriage of Moberg v. Moberg 350 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Marriage of Moberg v. Moberg 350 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , the court held that a “letter and a statement itemizing, without placing a value thereon, some of the work done by defendant’s counsel” was not sufficient proof of the value of the services.
Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard 348 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard 348 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 19-20
Bogen v. Bogen 261 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1977
Bogen v. Bogen 261 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1977
Davis v. Davis, 306 Minn. 536 , Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
Drew v. Drew 244 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1976
Drew v. Drew 244 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1976
1(a) (b); Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321 , Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1976
Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1976
Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 20
Davis v. Davis 235 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1975

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by