Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kaiser v. Kaiser, 186 N.W.2d 678.

97 citing documents.

Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
tive child support obligation established by section 518A.34 must serve “the best interests of the child”); (“Courts will not be bound by an agreement between parents affecting the rights of minor children with respect to support, but will be controlled by the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”); (“Child support requirements, relating as they do to the nonbargainable interests of the children, are less subject to restraint by stipulation.”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But children’s interests are “nonbargainable” and “less subject to restraint by stipulation.” (making this observation in context of child-support requirements).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(makin g this statement in the context of a child-support dispute).
In re the Marriage of: Jane Swenson Amdal, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
As the dissolution court noted in the 2017 judgment, “[t]he purpose of alimony is to care for the wife’s needs after divorce, not to provide her with a lifetime profit-sharing plan.”
A17-1036 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 184, (noting that “[t]he purpose of alimony is to care for the wife’s needs after divorce, not to provide her with a lifetime profit -sharing plan” (quoting Homer H. Clark Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, § 14.9, at 460) (1968)); see also Snyder v. Snyder, 298 Mi
In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the interests of children are “nonbargainable” and “less subject to restraint by stipulation.” Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180, (stated in context of child-support requirements).
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Charles A. T. Gill v. Kathryn E. K. Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 179
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
County of Stearns v. Barnell 693 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(noting strong state policy of assuring that children have adequate and timely economic support of their parents); (stating that duty of support commences with child’s birth); see also Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180 , (stating that child-support provisions in stipulations, as those relating to “the nonbargainable interests of the children,” are subject to less restraint by courts).
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
d at 449 (); Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Claybaugh, d at 449 (); Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 179
Walker v. Walker 553 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Walker v. Walker 553 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 179
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Moylan, d at 865 (citing Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 182 , ).
Marriage of Katter v. Katter 457 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Katter v. Katter 457 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 182
Ganyo v. Engen 446 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ganyo v. Engen 446 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180 , pet.
Marriage of Prange v. Prange 437 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Prange v. Prange 437 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
31, 1986); see also Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 425 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 425 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 179-80
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Meyers v. Meyers 409 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Meyers v. Meyers 409 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
Marriage of Cisek v. Cisek 409 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Cisek v. Cisek 409 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The court concluded that, under Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , respondent is not required to supplement appellant’s investment income through increased maintenance.
Marriage of Lenz v. Wergin 408 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lunde v. Lunde 408 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ernst v. Ernst 408 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lenz v. Wergin 408 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 185-86
Marriage of Lunde v. Lunde 408 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Appellant cites Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , and Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , in support of his argument that the award of maintenance is too high, claiming that the award will allow respondent to actually improve upon her former standard of living.
Ernst v. Ernst 408 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 179
Marriage of Eichenholz v. Eichenholz 407 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 405 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Murray v. Murray 405 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173
Marriage of Finck v. Finck 399 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Finck v. Finck 399 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , 181 n. 4, , 684 n. 4 (1971).
Quaderer v. Forrest 387 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Quaderer v. Forrest 387 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
“Child support requirements, relating as they do to the non-bar-gainable interest of the children, are less subject to restraint by stipulation.” Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
Marriage of Katz v. Katz 380 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986