Bouman v. Reiter
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 2018, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Giencke v. Haglund (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Hansen v. Todnem (Minn. 2018)
- Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Marriage of Kelzenberg v. Kelzenberg (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy (Minn. 1974)
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 amending a divorce decree to reduce child support payments by $10 per week. The trial court has discretion in deciding whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to necessitate modifying the child support provisions of a divorce decree. We will not reverse the trial court’s decision in this matter absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 133 N. W. 2d 652 (1965). A careful review of this record reveals no abuse of discretion.
Plaintiff argues that the failure of the trial court to make written findings of fact constitutes reversible error. While we have recognized this to be the better practice, 1 it is not technically required. 2
No attorneys’ fees or costs are allowed to either of the parties for this appeal.
Affirmed.
Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 133 N. W. 2d 652 (1965).
Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.