Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Erlandson v. Erlandsongreen2 sentences2016See Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d at 39−40 (“[A]lthough the statute lists seven factors, the issue is basically the financial needs of [the obligee] and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of [the obligor].”). 1987No single factor is disposi-tive, and “although the statute lists seven factors, the issue is basically the financial needs of [a spouse] and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of [the other spouse].” Id. at 39-40 . | 1 | 4 |
Krick v. Krickgreen2 sentences1985Krick v. Krick, 349 N.W.2d 350 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 1984Krick v. Krick, 349 N.W.2d 350, 352 (Minn.Ct. | 1 | 2 |
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkowgreen1 sentence2016Savings The district court excluded from Bichrt’s reasonable monthly expenses her claim of $540 for retirement savings and $200 for other savings and investments, reasoning that “the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that savings amounts should be excluded when determining a spouse’s reasonable needs” and citing Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 216 (Minn. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Novick v. Novickgreen1 sentence1987Novick v. Novick, 366 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Cooper
green
2 sentences1982Because each case must be determined on its own facts, see Cooper v. Cooper, 298 Minn. 247 , 214 N.W.2d 682 (1974), and no single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive, see Minn.Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (1980), it is important to examine the current situation for Rose and Marlin, noting that although the statute lists seven factors, the issue is basically the financial needs of Rose and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of Marlin. 1982Because each case must be determined on its own facts, see Cooper v. Cooper, 298 Minn. 247 , 214 N.W.2d 682 (1974), and no single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of maintenance is dispositive, see Minn.Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (1980), it is important to examine the current situation for Rose and Marlin, noting that although the statute lists seven factors, the issue is basically the financial needs of Rose and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of Marlin. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.