Cited by

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

65 citing documents.

  • Davis v. Davis 235 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1975
    Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21 , 6A Dunnell, Dig.
  • O'Neil v. O'Neil 210 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1973
  • O'Neil v. O'Neil 210 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1973
    Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16
  • LaFroth v. LaFroth 210 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1973
  • LaFroth v. LaFroth 210 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1973
    Compare Wilkens v. Wilkens, 289 Minn. 546 , with Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16
  • Eizenhoefer v. Eizenhoefer 193 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1972
  • Eizenhoefer v. Eizenhoefer 193 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1972
    1 Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 21
  • Reiland v. Reiland 185 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1971
  • Reiland v. Reiland 185 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1971
    Johnson v. Johnson, 223 Minn. 420 , 27 N. W. (2d) 289 ; Lindberg v. Lindberg, 282 Minn. 536 , 163 N. W. (2d) 870 ; Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321 , 170 N. W. (2d) 213 ; Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , 154 N. W. (2d) 902 ; Lobash v. Lobash, 283 Minn. 255 , 167 N. W. (2d) 43 ; Eisel v. Eisel, 261 Minn. 1 , 110 N. W. (2d) 881 ; Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 261 Minn. 272 , 111 N. W. (2d) 782 .
  • Messer v. Messer 184 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1971
  • Messer v. Messer 184 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1971
    In Vandewege v. Vandewege, 284 Minn. 330, 334 , 170 N. W. (2d) 228, 230 , this court pointed out that “the misconduct of the wife has a substantial bearing on the amount of the award.” In Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , 154 N. W. (2d) 902 , this court held the delinquency of the wife is one of the elements to be considered in determining the division of property and award of alimony.
  • Bollenbach v. Bollenbach 175 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1970
  • Bollenbach v. Bollenbach 175 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1970
    See, e.g., Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , 154 N. W. (2d) 902 ; Annotation, 1 A. L. R. (3d) 6.
  • Gallivan v. Gallivan 155 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1967
  • Gallivan v. Gallivan 155 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1967
    See, Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16 , 154 N. W. (2d) 902 ; cf. Ehlmann v. Ehlmann, 278 Minn. 370 , 154 N. W. (2d) 684 .