Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hanson v. Nygaard, 117 N.W. 235.

40 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Trusteeship under that certain Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 2010, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quoting Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30, 37, 117 N.W.
In re the Estate of: Mary Ann Nething Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Mary Ann Nething Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is an irregularity which renders the subsequent proceedings voidable and subject to be set aside on motion or appeal.” Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30, 37, 117 N.W.
Stumer v. Hibbing General Hospital 65 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1954
Stumer v. Hibbing General Hospital 65 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1954
9 Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , contains dictum to the effect that the jurisdiction of the probate court over a particular decedent’s estate attaches when its general jurisdiction is invoked by the presentation to the court of a proper petition by some person entitled to take such action.
Vesey v. Vesey 53 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1952
Vesey v. Vesey 53 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1952
14 Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30, 35 , ; In re Estate of Gilroy, 193 Minn. 349, 353 , ; 1 Mason’s Dunnell on Minn. Probate Law, § 40.
Bengtson v. Setterberg 35 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1949
Bengtson v. Setterberg 35 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1949
Bank, 136 Minn. 333 , , L. R. A. 1917E, 544; In re Estate of Eklund, 174 Minn. 28 , ; because of failure to give proper notice of proceedings, Hadley v. Bourdeaux, 90 Minn. 177 , ; Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 A. S. R. 523; because the court made an error of fact, Pierce v. Maetzold, 126 Minn. 445 , ; DeWolf v. Ericson, 175 Minn. 68 , ; Brotton v. Donovan, 177 Minn. 34 , ; because an intestate decree is not subject to collateral attack on discovery of a will, C
Hunt v. Rolloff 28 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1947
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
7 Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 A. S. R. 523, and In re Estate of Gilroy, 193 Minn. 349 , , both involved jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons; in State ex rel.
In Re Estate of Stenzel 299 N.W. 2 Minn. 1941
Stenzel v. Kreger 299 N.W. 2 Minn. 1941
Stenzel v. Kreger 299 N.W. 2 Minn. 1941
here notice was required by statute, since “no judge can exercise his discretion independent of the forms and requisites of the law.” *517 While the failure to give the notice required by statute does not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, it does affect the regularity of the proceedings so as to render them “voidable and subject to be set aside on motion or appeal.” Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 A. S. R. 523.
In Re Estate of Stenzel 299 N.W. 2 Minn. 1941
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , 117 N.W.
In Re Estate of Gilroy 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
Pratt v. Cheney 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
Pratt v. Cheney 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 A. S. R. 523; Fridley v. Farmers & M. Sav.
In Re Estate of Gilroy 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , 117 N.W.
In Re Estate of Martin 247 N.W. 515 Minn. 1933
In Re Estate of Martin 247 N.W. 515 Minn. 1933
If the jurisdiction of any probate court is invoked by appropriate petition (Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30, 34 , , 127 A. S. R. 523) the jurisdiction so invoked “shall pre- *411 elude the subsequent exercise of jurisdiction by any other probate court over the same matter.” That does not mean that a probate proceeding once commenced in a given county may not be dismissed or otherwise discontinued.
State Ex Rel. Degen v. Freeman 210 N.W. 14 Minn. 1926
State Ex Rel. Degen v. Freeman 210 N.W. 14 Minn. 1926
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
In Re Estate of Davidson 210 N.W. 40 Minn. 1926
In Re Estate of Davidson 210 N.W. 40 Minn. 1926
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
Scott v. Whitely 209 N.W. 640 Minn. 1926
Scott v. Whitely 209 N.W. 640 Minn. 1926
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
Kalman v. County of Grant 209 N.W. 638 Minn. 1926
Kalman v. County of Grant 209 N.W. 638 Minn. 1926
This conclusion finds some support in McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 335 , ; Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
Appeal of Anderson v. Barlow 188 N.W. 282 Minn. 1922
Appeal of Anderson v. Barlow 188 N.W. 282 Minn. 1922
Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
Fridley v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank 162 N.W. 454 Minn. 1917
Fridley v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank 162 N.W. 454 Minn. 1917
Co. 86 Minn. 140 , ; Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 150 N.W. 385 Minn. 1914
Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 150 N.W. 385 Minn. 1914
As stated in Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , , 127 Am.
Austro-Hungarian Consul v. G. A. Westphal 139 N.W. 300 Minn. 1912
Austro-Hungarian Consul v. G. A. Westphal 139 N.W. 300 Minn. 1912
See Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30, 35 , , 127 Am.
Kolars v. Brown 121 N.W. 229 Minn. 1909
Kolars v. Brown 121 N.W. 229 Minn. 1909
State v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 25 Minn. 22 ; Noon v. Finnegan, 29 Minn. 418 , ; Hill v. Townley, 45 Minn. 167 , ; Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30 , .