Eberhart v. Eberhart
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1985, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
39 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Pence v. Pence (Ark. 1954)
- Von Trotha v. Hansen (N.D. 1969)
- State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Village of Leetonia (Minn. 1941)
- Conrad v. Conrad (Neb. 1981)
- Curry v. Felix (Minn. 1967)
- Naomi E. Jackson v. Franklin B. Jackson (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Hasse v. Hasse (Minn. 1950)
- Fjeld v. Fjeld (Minn. 1937)
- Michalson v. Michalson (Minn. 1962)
- State Ex Rel. Southwell v. Chamberland (Minn. 1985)
- State on Behalf of McDonnell v. McCutcheon (Minn. 1983)
- Ryan v. Ryan (Minn. 1974)
- Porter v. Porter (Ohio 1971)
- Noble v. Noble (Nev. 1970)
- Fish v. Fish (Minn. 1968)
- Smith v. Smith (Minn. 1968)
- Gannon v. Gannon (Minn. 1960)
- Holmes v. Holmes (Minn. 1959)
- State of Illinois Ex Rel. Shannon v. Sterling (Minn. 1956)
- Iverson v. Iverson (Minn. 1954)
- Sage v. Sage (Ark. 1952)
- Levell v. Levell (Or. 1948)
- Anderson v. Anderson (Minn. 1940)
- Zirkle v. Zirkle (Ind. 1930)
- Schulte v. Fitch (Minn. 1925)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A former appeal is reported in 149 Minn. 192, 183 N. W. 140. The judgment there under review was modified so as to award the custody of the child to the plaintiff under such regulations for visiting by the father and with such allowance for support as the trial court should order. When the case went down the trial court amended its judgment by giving the custody of the child to the defendant; by relieving him from payment of further support money to the plaintiff, whether accrued or unaccrued; and finally, by providing “that the complaint and action of the plaintiff herein be, and hereby is dismissed.”
The hearing below was a reconsideration npon affidavits of the merits of the case and resulted in a dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action. This is not permissible practice. The original judgment, awarding custody and giving support money, was authorized when the plaintiff failed to prove a ground for divorce. Jacobs v. Jacobs, 136 Minn. 190, 161 N. W. 525, L. R, A. 1917D, 971. Whether the court could altogether relieve the defendant of accrued support money we need not inquire. Such relief was granted, but under very exceptional circumstances, in Hartigan v. Hartigan, 145 Minn. 27, 176 N. W. 180.
The judgment is reversed and the court below is directed to enter judgment that the defendant be relieved from the payment of support money accruing from the date of the judgment from which this appeal is taken, until the child is returned to this state, at which time the payments heretofore ordered for his support shall continue until otherwise ordered by the court, and relieving him, until said child is returned to this jurisdiction, from accrued instalments of support money.
Should defendant choose to relieve himself of his default, the child should be returned to this state, where defendant may have the opportunity of visitation, as'provided by the former decree, custody still to remain with plaintiff as ordered in said decree until the further order of the court.
Reversed with directions.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.