Kemp v. Kemp

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[a]bsent a demonstrated need [by a maintenance recipient, a maintenance obligor’s] continuing maintenance obligation should be terminated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2007-06-12· cited 21×
• Lee v. Lee
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2008-04-07· cited 5×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Marriage of Rutten v. Rutten
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-04-13· cited 239×
• Marriage of Erlandson v. Erlandson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1982-03-26· cited 135×
• Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1997-09-11· cited 35×
• Claybaugh v. Claybaugh
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1981-11-25· cited 32×
• Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1992-12-15· cited 21×
• Marriage of Lyon v. Lyon
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1989-05-05· cited 20×
• Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1997-08-14· cited 14×
• Finch v. Marusich
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-07-03· cited 8×
• State, County of St. Louis Ex Rel. Rimolde v. Tinker
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1999-11-02· cited 6×
• Dougherty v. Dougherty
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1989-07-25· cited 6×
• Poehls v. Poehls
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1993-06-29· cited 5×
• Marriage of Borcherding v. Borcherding
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1997-07-01· cited 1×