Timmons v. Timmons
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 2001, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jw v. Cm (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)
- J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)
- Scheibe v. Scheibe (Minn. 1976)
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
This is an appeal from an order of the Scott County District Court amending a divorce decree by transferring custody of two daughters, ages 13 and 9, from the mother to the father, leaving an older daughter with the mother.
The mother contends that the admission into evidence of a report of an investigation made by the Scott County Welfare Department was prejudicial, citing Stanford v. Stanford, 266 Minn. 250, 123 N. W. 2d 187 (1963). However, in the instant case plaintiff did not object to the order requesting an investigation, the report was furnished the attorneys and the court without objection, and the welfare investigator was subject to cross-examination. The evidence contained in the report was for the most part cumulative. We hold there was substantial compliance with the guidelines set forth in Stanford and no prejudice resulted.
We are satisfied after examining the record that transferring custody of the youngest daughters to the father was in their best interests.
Attorney’s fees of $300 allowed plaintiff.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.