DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brugger v. Brugger, 229 N.W.2d 131.

41 citing documents.

  • In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “[T]he [district court] must of necessity ‘balance the equities’ in the light of facts then existing or in the light of facts that will with reasonable probability exist in the future.” Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 491, d 131, 134 (1975) (quotation marks omitted).
  • In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Thomas Joseph Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Thomas Joseph Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    In divorce cases involving property, spousal maintenance, and child-support issues, “the [district court] 7 must of necessity ‘balance the equities’ in the light of facts then existing or in the light of facts that will with reasonable probability exist in the future.” Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 491, (quotation marks omitted).
  • Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    See Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 491 , (“[I]n a divorce case of this kind [i.e., involving property, maintenance, and child support issues], the Court must of necessity ‘balance the equities’ in the light of facts then existing or in the light of facts that will with reasonable probability exist in the future.”).
  • Dear v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Ass'n 481 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Dear v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Ass'n 481 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 495-96
  • Borich v. Borich 450 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Borich v. Borich 450 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    In Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether the statutory reduction of the age of majority from 21 to 18, under section 518.54, subd.
  • Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    ANALYSIS I. Appellant argues that “age of majority” in the amended decree should be construed to mean age 21, as set forth in the original decree, claiming that the statutory change in the age of majority may not be retroactively applied to a decree entered prior to the amendment of the statute, citing Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , and Yaeger v. Yaeger, 303 Minn. 497
  • Marriage of Katz v. Katz 408 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
  • Marriage of Katz v. Katz 408 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
    Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 495 , Yaeger v. Yaeger, 303 Minn. 497, 498-99
  • 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 also Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , (reduction in age of majority has no retroactive effect on child support provisions); Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28 , (agreements between parents affecting rights of minor children to support are not binding on the courts).
  • Marriage of Kujawa v. Kujawa 397 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marriage of Kujawa v. Kujawa 397 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 495
  • McGleno v. McGleno 393 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • McGleno v. McGleno 393 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488
  • Marriage of Fairburn v. Fairburn 373 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Fairburn v. Fairburn 373 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , Yaeger v. Yaeger, 303 Minn. 497
  • Marriage of Winter v. Winter 375 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Winter v. Winter 375 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488
  • American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council No. 65 v. State, Public Employment Relations Board 372 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Streitz v. Streitz 363 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Streitz v. Streitz 363 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    However, in Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , and Yaeger v. Yaeger, 303 Minn. 497 , the supreme court stressed that the change in the age of majority was not retroactive and would not change a duty to pay child support until age 21 in those cases where it had been ordered or stipulated to.
  • State on Behalf of McDonnell v. McCutcheon 337 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
  • State on Behalf of McDonnell v. McCutcheon 337 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
    In Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , we held that the lowering of the age of majority in Minnesota to 18 years had no retroactive effect on provisions, for the support of children, contained in divorce decrees entered prior to enactment of the amendment.
  • Parish v. Quie 294 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1980
  • Parish v. Quie 294 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1980
    Minn. Stat. § 645.21 (1978); Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , Ekstrom v. Harmon, 256 Minn. 166 , Chapman v. Davis, 233 Minn. 62 , George Benz Sons, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers Corp., 227 Minn. 249
  • Cummins v. Redman 251 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
  • Cummins v. Redman 251 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
    The father represents that the case of Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , placed him at a disad *241 vantage because when the legislature reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18 he relied on that law to cease making payments.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 232 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1975
  • Johnson v. Johnson 232 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1975
    As to other issues raised by plaintiff, see Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488
  • Nicosia v. Nicosia 229 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1975
  • Nicosia v. Nicosia 229 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1975
    Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , Yaeger v. Yaeger, 303 Minn. 497
  • Hampton v. Hampton 229 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1975
  • Yaeger v. Yaeger 229 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1975
  • Yaeger v. Yaeger 229 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1975
    We have released on this date an opinion in the case of Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , in which we have considered the effect of L. 1973, c. 725, § 74, on the support provision of a divorce decree which did not contain a stipulation as here.
  • Hampton v. Hampton 229 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1975
    *502 We hold in Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , filed herewith, that L. 1973, c. 725, § 74, lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18, did not apply retroactively to invalidate rights established by judgments entered prior to the effective date of the statutory amendment, June 1, 1973, 1 and that there is no compelling reason for a contr