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.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 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 Simmons v. Simmonsgreen1 sentence2015Because child support “relates to nonbargainable interests of children,” it is “less subject to restraint by stipulation than are other dissolution matters.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also Simmons v. Simmons, 486 N.W.2d 788 , 791–92 (Minn. App. 1992) (noting that the welfare of children takes precedence over any stipulated provision in a dissolution judgment). 11 Nonetheless, this court has held that a stipulated judgment, with findings, may rebut a presumption of unfairness and unreasonableness in a support-modification proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnellgreen2 sentences2015Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(b)(1). “[T]he existence of a stipulation does not bar later consideration of whether a change in circumstances warrants modification.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, 678 N.W.2d 471, 475 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). 2015Because child support “relates to nonbargainable interests of children,” it is “less subject to restraint by stipulation than are other dissolution matters.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also Simmons v. Simmons, 486 N.W.2d 788 , 791–92 (Minn. App. 1992) (noting that the welfare of children takes precedence over any stipulated provision in a dissolution judgment). 11 Nonetheless, this court has held that a stipulated judgment, with findings, may rebut a presumption of unfairness and unreasonableness in a support-modification proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Yeager v. Yeagergreen2 sentences1989See id. at 523 n. 2, which includes a warning of the potential risk of relying on judgment where the matter is "presented to the court on a stipulation with a waiver of both counsel and appearance." We recognize the seriousness of the concerns raised in Yeager and in the special concurrence here regarding the integrity of stipulations based upon waiver of counsel and nonappearance of a pro se party. 1989See id. at 523 n. 2, which includes a warning of the potential risk of relying on judgment where the matter is “presented to the court on a stipulation with a waiver of both counsel and appearance.” We recognize the seriousness of the concerns raised in Yeager and in the special concurrence here regarding the integrity of stipulations based upon waiver of counsel and nonappearance of a pro se party. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wahlgreen1 sentence1987See State v. Wahl, 394 N.W.2d 536, 538 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 19, 1986) (prosecutor and defense counsel agreed on statement summarizing factual basis of Spreigl conviction). | 1 | 1 |
Kaiser v. Kaisergreen2 sentences1985Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180-81 , 186 N.W.2d 678, 683 (1971). 1985Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180-81 , 186 N.W.2d 678, 683 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2007In evaluating whether Davidson’s case warranted application of the exception to the general rule, and thus whether the trial court’s refusal to accept the stipulation was error, we explained that when the potential for unfair prejudice is high: “the correct approach under the Rules of Evidence in a ease such as [Davidson’s is] to compare the potential of the evidence for unfair prejudice with the relevance of the evidence to issues other than the issue to which the stipulation relates.” Id. at 11-12 . 2007In evaluating whether Davidson's case warranted application of the exception to the general rule, and thus whether the trial court's refusal to accept the stipulation was error, we explained that when the potential for unfair prejudice is high: "the correct approach under the Rules of Evidence in a case such as [Davidson's is] to compare the potential of the evidence for unfair prejudice with the relevance of the evidence to issues other than the issue to which the stipulation relates." Id. at 11-12 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Lothenbach
green
1 sentence1998Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d at 857 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.