DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Buck v. Buck, 142 N.W. 729.

39 citing documents.

  • Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
    “All that is necessary for the application of this rule is that the issues should be so distinct and separable that one issue can be justly determined without a determination of the other.” In re Buck’s Estate
  • Vadnais v. American Family Mutual Insurance 243 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1976
  • Vadnais v. American Family Mutual Insurance 243 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1976
    Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463, 468
  • Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
  • Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
    In Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , we indicated that the question for the trial court in the first instance, and for the appellate court upon review, in cases of this kind is whether there is “any evidence reasonably tending to sup *383 port [the jury] verdict?
  • Swanson v. Thill 152 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1967
  • Swanson v. Thill 152 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1967
    Co. v. Chrysler Corp. 274 Minn. 87 , 142 N. W. (2d) 728 (defendant granted new trial on issue whether a defective part of an automobile was supplied by defendant); C. H. Phinney Land Co. v. Corey, 107 Minn. 564 , (plaintiff granted new trial on issue whether defendant had waived furnishing of abstract); Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , (proponent granted new trial on issue of undue influence; finding on testator’s mental capacity stands).
  • Conner v. Dreyer 104 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1960
  • Conner v. Dreyer 104 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1960
    See, Valerius v. Richard, 57 Minn. 443 , ; Buck v. Buck, *404 122 Minn. 463 , ; Lee v. Lee, 248 Minn. 496 , 80 N. W. (2d) 529 , 67 A. L. R. (2d) 176; Peterson v. Minneapolis St.
  • Marsden v. Puck 13 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
  • In Re Estate of Marsden 13 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
  • Marsden v. Puck 13 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
    & Supp. § 10238; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; In re Estate of Mazanec, 204 Minn. 406 , ; In re Estate of Geske, 211 Minn. 447 , 1 N. W. (2d) 423 ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , ; In re Hollis’ Estate, 234 Iowa —, 12 N. W. (2d) 576 .
  • In Re Estate of Marsden 13 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
    745 ; In re Estate of Geske, 211 Minn. 447 , ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , 142 N.W.
  • In Re Estate of Mazanec 283 N.W. 745 Minn. 1939
  • Mazanec v. Huna 283 N.W. 745 Minn. 1939
  • Mazanec v. Huna 283 N.W. 745 Minn. 1939
    In re Nelson’s Will, supra, at p. 208 (N. W. p. 143); In re Hess’ Will, supra, at p. 511 (N. W. p. 614); Tyner v. Varien, supra, at p. 183 (N. W. p. 898); Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463, 470 , ; Berg v. Berg, 201 Minn. 179, 186 , .
  • In Re Estate of Mazanec 283 N.W. 745 Minn. 1939
    p. 898); Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , 470 , 142 N.W.
  • Borum v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 238 N.W. 4 Minn. 1931
  • Borum v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 238 N.W. 4 Minn. 1931
    Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , ; First Nat.
  • Larsen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 220 N.W. 159 Minn. 1928
  • Larsen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 220 N.W. 159 Minn. 1928
    Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , , and the cases cited therein, and also Hertogs v. Red-E-Oil Co. 172 Minn. 598 , .
  • Hertogs v. Red-E-Oil Co. 216 N.W. 333 Minn. 1927
  • Hertogs v. Red-E-Oil Co. 216 N.W. 333 Minn. 1927
    Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , , and the cases therein referred to.
  • Potter v. Great Northern Railway Co. 208 N.W. 641 Minn. 1926
  • Potter v. Great Northern Railway Co. 208 N.W. 641 Minn. 1926
    In Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463, 468 , , a distinction is made to the effect that where it is claimed that the “verdict is not justified by the evidence,» the trial court may exercise discretion in weighing the evidenec to determine its sufficiency, but when it is claimed that the verdict is “contrary to law» the element of discretion
  • Estate of Keeley v. Ochs 208 N.W. 535 Minn. 1926
  • Estate of Keeley v. Ochs 208 N.W. 535 Minn. 1926
    from parent to child, or child to parent, while the court will scrutinize carefully the circumstances of the transaction, the presumption is in favor of its validity, and in order to set it aside on the ground of undue influence the court must be satisfied that it was not the voluntary act of the donor; the burden of establishing such fact being upon the party contesting the gift.” Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , : “ * * * when the contestants have made out a prima facie *123 case by the productio
  • Rasmussen ex rel. Lehman v. Evans 185 N.W. 297 Minn. 1921
  • Rasmussen ex rel. Lehman v. Evans 185 N.W. 297 Minn. 1921
    Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; Buck v. *321 Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , , and cases cited.
  • Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. 171 N.W. 272 Minn. 1919
  • Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. 171 N.W. 272 Minn. 1919
    Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , ; Hagstrom v. McDougall, 131 Minn. 389 , ; Smith v. Great Northern Ry.
  • Smith v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 46 Minn. 1916
  • Smith v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 46 Minn. 1916
    Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 32 Minn. 445 , ; Chicago B. & N. R. Co. v. Porter, 43 Minn. 527 , ; Cobb v. Cole, 44 Minn. 278 , ; Sauer v. Traeger, 56 Minn. 364 , ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , .
  • Thill v. Freiermuth 156 N.W. 260 Minn. 1916
  • Thill v. Freiermuth 156 N.W. 260 Minn. 1916
    665; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , .
  • Foot, Schulze & Co. v. Porter 154 N.W. 1078 Minn. 1915
  • Foot, Schulze & Co. v. Porter 154 N.W. 1078 Minn. 1915
    be entered is questionable, unless the verdict is upon an issue which is clearly decisive of the case, as in Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , .
  • Buck v. Buck 148 N.W. 117 Minn. 1914
  • Buck v. Buck 148 N.W. 117 Minn. 1914