Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 361 N.W.2d 814.

41 citing documents.

Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 814, 818 (Minn. 1985).
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. a & a Liquors of St. Cloud 649 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. a & a Liquors of St. Cloud 649 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Distinguished Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(finding that assignment of support arises by operation of law).
Nelson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Nelson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(valid assignment generally vests in assignee same right, title, or interest that assignor had in property assigned).
Schaefer v. Weber 567 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1997
Schaefer v. Weber 567 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1997
this court explained the nature of the assignment under section 256.74, subd.
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 544 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
DLH, Inc. v. Russ 544 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(explaining that assignee, who receives full title and interest, stands in assignor’s shoes and has the same right, title, or interest that assignor had in assigned property).
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Independent Mortgage Services, Inc. 519 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Independent Mortgage Services, Inc. 519 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(a valid assignment vests assignee with same right, title or interest as assignor had in the thing assigned).
Geldert v. American National Bank 506 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Geldert v. American National Bank 506 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Estate of Sangren 504 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Estate of Sangren 504 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Doucette v. Kraskey 496 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Doucette v. Kraskey 496 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
see also Boyle, d at 187 (“in determining amount of continuing reimbursement, visitation issues are not recognized”).
County of Hennepin v. Boyle 450 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
County of Hennepin v. Boyle 450 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Bank of Elbow Lake v. First State Bank of Ashby 439 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bank of Elbow Lake v. First State Bank of Ashby 439 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Stich v. Stich 435 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Stich v. Stich 435 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
for his argument that an assignment under the federal AFDC laws to the county is a total and complete assignment giving it the authority to make a binding agreement to reduce the amount of child support.
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
and Blair v. Espeland, 231 Minn. 444
Douglas County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Cavegn 420 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Douglas County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Cavegn 420 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Tell v. Tell 383 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1986
Marriage of Tell v. Tell 383 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1986
-17 (Minn.1985): "One basis for this concept is to prevent the child from becoming a pawn in the struggle between the parents.
Sievert v. LaMarca 383 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sievert v. LaMarca 383 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
STATE EX REL, SAUER v. Hellesvig 376 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
STATE EX REL, SAUER v. Hellesvig 376 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 370 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 370 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Iverson v. Schulte 367 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Iverson v. Schulte 367 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
rev’g, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered the effect of a similar assignment of support clause.