Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bogen v. Bogen, 261 N.W.2d 606.

175 citing documents.

Marriage of Kreidler v. Kreidler 348 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Kreidler v. Kreidler 348 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Roberson, 296 Minn. at 478 , d at 348
Marriage of Filkins v. Filkins 347 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Rutten v. Rutten 347 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1984
Marriage of Rutten v. Rutten 347 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1984
See also, ($20,000 cash settlement in lieu of alimony valid).
Reck v. Reck 346 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Reck v. Reck 346 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 716 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Van De Loo v. Van De Loo 346 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Van De Loo v. Van De Loo 346 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Marriage of O'Brien v. O'Brien 343 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1984
In Re the Marriage of O'Brien v. O'Brien 343 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1984
“The trial court is accorded broad discretion in dividing property in dissolution of a marriage, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.”
Marriage of Taylor v. Taylor 329 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1983
Marriage of Taylor v. Taylor 329 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1983
Faus v. Faus 319 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1982
Faus v. Faus 319 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1982
In light of the broad discretion accorded the district court in making a division of property, Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 365, 368 , -96 (1976), we believe appellant’s challenge of the division of property in this case is without merit.
Marriage of Schmitz v. Schmitz 309 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1981
Marriage of Schmitz v. Schmitz 309 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1981
Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens 300 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1980
Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens 300 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1980
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi 294 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1980
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi 294 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1980
Aaron v. Aaron 281 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1979
Aaron v. Aaron 281 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1979
See, , 609 & n. 5 (Minn. 1977); Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 365
Laikola v. Engineered Concrete 277 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1979
Laikola v. Engineered Concrete 277 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1979
s court held the Iowa marriage valid, stating ( 239 Minn. 34 , ): “ * * * In the absence of a statute expressly declaring a marriage in violation of the six months’ provision of § 517.03 void, such marriage not having been declared invalid in a proceeding instituted for that purpose, cannot be collaterally attacked in proceedings to probate a will.” More recently, this court held that a Nebraska marriage of two Minnesota residents, made in contravention to the same 6-month prohibition, was valid