DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Smith v. Smith, 163 N.W.2d 852.

29 citing documents.

  • Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as subrogees of Northern States Power Co. and Southern Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    without evidentiary support.” Smith v. Smith
  • Kyle Wendell Else, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A district court also abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrar y or unreasonable or without evidentiary support.”
  • State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
  • Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    An abuse of discretion occurs when “the order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without evi-dentiary support.” Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193
  • Marriage of Compart v. Compart 417 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Marriage of Compart v. Compart 417 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193
  • Quaderer v. Forrest 387 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Quaderer v. Forrest 387 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193
  • Marriage of Nyholm v. Nyholm 380 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Nyholm v. Nyholm 380 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193 , (footnote omitted).
  • Meier v. Connelly 378 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Meier v. Connelly 378 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Modification of the child support provisions of a divorce decree is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed in the absence of “an abuse of discretion in the sense that the order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without evidentiary support.” (quoting Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193 , ).
  • Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel 366 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel 366 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to forgive child support arrearages, and will not be reversed but for “an abuse of discretion in the sense that the order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without evi-dentiary support.” , (Minn.App.1984), quoting Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193
  • State on Behalf of Johnson v. Howell 359 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State on Behalf of Johnson v. Howell 359 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193
  • 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
    The trial court has broad discretion, however, to grant or deny the motion and will not be reversed but for “an abuse of discretion in the sense that the order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without evidentiary support.” Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193 , see also, Michalson v. Michalson, 263 Minn. 356, 359 , Mansfield v. Mansfield, 230 Minn. 574, 576
  • Ascheman v. Village of Hancock 254 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1977
  • Ascheman v. Village of Hancock 254 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1977
    See, Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190
  • Ryan v. Ryan 219 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1974
  • Ryan v. Ryan 219 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1974
    Shannon v. Sterling, 248 Minn. 266 , Gannon v. Gannon, 258 Minn. 57 , Michalson v. Michalson, 263 Minn. 356 , Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190
  • Felsheim v. Felsheim 214 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1974
  • Felsheim v. Felsheim 214 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1974
    N. W. 2d 879 (1971); Messer v. Messer, 289 Minn. 449 , Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , Vandewege v. Vandewege, 284 Minn. 330 , Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321 , Krohn v. Krohn, 284 Minn. 95 , Hansen v. Hansen, 284 Minn. 1 , Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190 , Fish v. Fish, 280 Minn. 316 , Cozik v. Cozik, 279 Minn. 91 , Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , Larkin v. Larkin, 261 Minn. 414 , Gannon v. Gannon, 258 Minn. 57 , and Al
  • Wallin v. Wallin 187 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1971
  • Wallin v. Wallin 187 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1971
    Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190 , 163 N. W. (2d) 852 ; Schultz v. Schultz, supra; Fish v. Fish, supra; Molto v. Molto, 242 Minn. 112 , 64 N. W. (2d) 154 .
  • Moir v. Kowalkowski 164 N.W.2d 69 Minn. 1969
  • Moir v. Kowalkowski 164 N.W.2d 69 Minn. 1969
    Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190 , 163 N. W. (2d) 852 .