DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hulett v. Carey, 69 N.W. 31.

34 citing documents.

  • Spafford v. Hahn 143 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1966
  • Spafford v. Hahn 143 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1966
    See, also, Chard v. Darlington, 243 Minn. 489 , 68 N. W. (2d) 405 ; Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L. R. A. 384.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 8 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1943
  • Johnson v. Johnson 8 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1943
    In Love v. Love, 185 Iowa 930 , , citing our decision in Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L. R. A. 384, 61 A. S. R. 419, the Iowa court construed the statute of that state providing that a marriage requires the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts to mean substantially the same as the first sentence of our § 517.01 (§ 8562), supra, to the same effect, under whi
  • Guptil v. E. O. Dahlquist Contracting Co. 266 N.W. 748 Minn. 1936
  • Guptil v. E. O. Dahlquist Contracting Co. 266 N.W. 748 Minn. 1936
    Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327, 337 , , 34 L. R, A. 384, 61 A. S. R. 419, does not aid relator.
  • In Re Estate of Welker 265 N.W. 273 Minn. 1936
  • In Re Estate of Welker 265 N.W. 273 Minn. 1936
    The decision in Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L. R. A. 384, 61 A. S. R. 419, a common-law marriage case, definitely aligned this court with those holding that “it is mutual, present consent, lawfully expressed, which makes marriage.” (For cases holding that in addition “habit and repute” are essential to a common-law marriage, see annotatio
  • In Re Estate of Kelly 254 N.W. 437 Minn. 1934
  • Kelly v. Humber 254 N.W. 437 Minn. 1934
  • In Re Estate of Kelly 254 N.W. 437 Minn. 1934
    See Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , 338-339 , 69 N.W.
  • Kelly v. Humber 254 N.W. 437 Minn. 1934
    See Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327, 338-339 , , 34 L. R. A. 384, 61 A. S. R. 419; Gardner, Wills (2 ed.) §§ 87, 88, pp. 249-252; 1 Schouler, Wills (6 ed.) §§ 639-643, pp. 732-740.
  • In Re Estate of Lust 243 N.W. 443 Minn. 1932
  • In Re Estate of Lust 243 N.W. 443 Minn. 1932
    There was no written contract of marriage as in Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , 69 N.W.
  • Congdon v. Congdon 200 N.W. 76 Minn. 1924
  • Congdon v. Congdon 200 N.W. 76 Minn. 1924
    In re Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L. R. A. 384, 61 Am.
  • Messerall v. Dreyer 189 N.W. 446 Minn. 1922
  • Messerall v. Dreyer 189 N.W. 446 Minn. 1922
    Jordon v. White, 20 Minn. 91 ; Sumner v. Jones, 27 Minn. 312, 314 , ; Cobb v. Cole, 44 Minn. 278 , ; Roussain v. Patten, 46 Minn. 308 , ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L. R. A. 384, 61 Am.
  • In re the Estate of Evans 177 N.W. 126 Minn. 1920
  • In re the Estate of Evans 177 N.W. 126 Minn. 1920
    339; Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L.RA.(N.S.)
  • Anderson v. Oleson 173 N.W. 665 Minn. 1919
  • Anderson v. Oleson 173 N.W. 665 Minn. 1919
    Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 55, 62 , ; Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn. 33, 37 , ; Hulett *331 v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327, 334 , , 34 L.R.A.
  • Johnson v. Holmes 170 N.W. 709 Minn. 1919
  • Johnson v. Holmes 170 N.W. 709 Minn. 1919
    Russell v. Reed, 32 Minn. 45 , ; Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L.R.A.
  • Le Suer v. Le Suer 142 N.W. 593 Minn. 1913
  • Le Suer v. Le Suer 142 N.W. 593 Minn. 1913
    Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L.R.A.
  • Shattuck v. Estate of Shattuck 136 N.W. 409 Minn. 1912
  • Shattuck v. Estate of Shattuck 136 N.W. 409 Minn. 1912
    Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , 34 L.R.A.
  • Heminway v. Miller 91 N.W. 428 Minn. 1902
  • Heminway v. Miller 91 N.W. 428 Minn. 1902
    In Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327, 337 , , it was held that an agreement to keep the marriage secret does not invalidate it; but in that case there was evidence .of the marriage by contract in writing, and the fact of marriage did not rest upon the mere presumption of the conduct of the parties.
  • Kelly v. Stevenson 88 N.W. 739 Minn. 1902
  • Kelly v. Stevenson 88 N.W. 739 Minn. 1902
    Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , .
  • Lowe v. Lowe 86 N.W. 11 Minn. 1901
  • Lowe v. Lowe 86 N.W. 11 Minn. 1901
    The case of Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , , cited by counsel, is not at all in point, because it was shown that Hulett read the letter himself, and it was fairly to be inferred from the proofs that he then put it in his pocket (where it was found the following day, immediately after he died) with an intent to mail.