Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. Strom, 129 N.W. 136.

27 citing documents.

Carlen v. Klammer 388 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Carlen v. Klammer 388 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , 129 N.W.
Raidt v. United States 130 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1964
Raidt v. United States 130 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1964
* * * ❖ * * Jfc * “While no flat declaration of this principle has been found in Minnesota cases, it seems to be clearly spelled out in the cases [citing In re Estate of Fretheim, 156 Minn. 366 , ; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , ; Hardenbergh v. Commr.
Vesey v. Vesey 53 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1952
Vesey v. Vesey 53 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1952
7 Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , ; cf. Mundinger v. Breeze, 188 Minn. 621 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
In Re Estate of Hauge 17 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1945
Olson v. Witherow 17 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1945
Olson v. Witherow 17 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1945
& Supp. § 3564c; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 5 , ; State ex rel.
In Re Estate of Hauge 17 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1945
Supp. § 3564c; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , 5 , 129 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Probate Court 283 N.W. 545 Minn. 1938
Mundinger v. Breeze 248 N.W. 47 Minn. 1933
Mundinger v. Breeze 248 N.W. 47 Minn. 1933
For the latter purpose the jurisdiction of the district court may be invoked under the rule of Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , .
Weis v. Kundert, Jr. 215 N.W. 176 Minn. 1927
Weis v. Kundert, Jr. 215 N.W. 176 Minn. 1927
1, 9, ; Samels v. Hartford Acc.
Wilson ex rel. Mitchell v. Erickson 180 N.W. 93 Minn. 1920
Wilson ex rel. Mitchell v. Erickson 180 N.W. 93 Minn. 1920
471; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , ; Haataja v. Saarenpaa, 118 Minn. 255 , .
Fischer v. Hintz 176 N.W. 177 Minn. 1920
Fischer v. Hintz 176 N.W. 177 Minn. 1920
State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Wiswell v. Wiswell, 35 Minn. 371 , ; In re Scheffer’s Estate, 58 Minn. 29 , ; Boltz v. Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Starkey v. Sweeney, 71 Minn. 241 , *164 ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , 129 N W. 136; State ex rel.
State ex rel. Williams v. Probate Court of Lyon County 168 N.W. 14 Minn. 1918
State ex rel. Williams v. Probate Court of Lyon County 168 N.W. 14 Minn. 1918
& 1916 Supp. §§ 7770-7779; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236 , ; State v. Probate *345 Court of Ramsey County, 103 Minn. 325 , ; Wellner v. Eckstein, 105 Minn. 444 , ; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , ; Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85 , .
State ex rel. Benz v. Probate Court 155 N.W. 906 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Benz v. Probate Court 155 N.W. 906 Minn. 1916
It was declared in Fiske v. Lawton, supra, that: “Within the limitations incident to the subject matters specified by the Constitution, our probate courts possess superior and general jurisdiction, and have implied power to do whatever is reasonably necessary to carry out powers expressly conferred,” quoting with approval from the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Start in Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 11 , , 139: “While they (the probate courts) have no general equity powers, yet as respects t
Winters v. Ellefson 150 N.W. 171 Minn. 1914
Winters v. Ellefson 150 N.W. 171 Minn. 1914
State v. Probate Court of Hennepin County, 112 Minn. 279, 287 , ; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 5 , .
Fiske v. Lawton 144 N.W. 455 Minn. 1913
Fiske v. Lawton 144 N.W. 455 Minn. 1913
Chief Justice Start thus tersely summarized this matter in his dissenting opinion in Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 11 , , 139: “While they have no general equity powers, yet as respects the *92 subjects committed by tbe constitution to their exclusive jurisdiction, they have the plenary powers, legal and equitable, that any ■court has.” It has been held, furthermore, that with respect to these subjects the constitut