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