Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tammen v. Tammen, 182 N.W.2d 840.

54 citing documents.

Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
rights and obligations of the parties have been fixed in the divorce decree as a result of stipulation is an important consideration restraining, although not controlling, the court’s authority.” See, Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 408 , Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28
Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
As we stated in Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367, 371 , and so recently reiterated in Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28 , 182 N. W. (2d) 840 : “Where the divorce decree has adopted a stipulation agreed upon by the parties, such stipulations are purely advisory to the court and do not limit its discretionary power to determine whether a future change in circumstances warrants revision, but they are entitled to considerable evidentiary w