Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Malchow v. Malchow, 172 N.W. 915.

51 citing documents.

Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
See Serbus , d at 385 (stating that "[t]he consideration for the antenuptial contract was clearly inadequate" where the wife would receive "far less than she would be entitled to" in the absence of the contract and that under the contract she would receive "the sum of $4,000 and a life estate in the homestead and its furnishings."); In re Malchow's Estate , 143 Minn. 53 , 172 N.W.
In Re the Estate of Kinney 733 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 2007
In Re the Estate of Kinney 733 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 2007
at 39 (“The entire absence of provision for plaintiff has been held * * * to impose upon the husband the burden of showing, if he would sustain the contract, that there was no fraud or concealment, and that the prospective wife knew the extent, character and value of the prospective husband’s property and the nature and extent of her rights as his wife and widow.”); In re Malchow’s Estate, 143 Minn. 53, 59 , 172 N.W.
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1989
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1989
See, Gartner v. Gartner, 246 Minn. 319, 343 , In re Malechow’s Estate, 143 Minn. 53, 57 , 172 N.W.
Marriage of Christensen v. Christensen 393 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Christensen v. Christensen 393 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
305 (1907); In re Malchow’s Estate, 143 Minn. 53 , 172 N.W.
Marriage of Rudbeck v. Rudbeck 365 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Rudbeck v. Rudbeck 365 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53, 59 , 172 N.W.
Marriage of Hill v. Hill 356 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Hill v. Hill 356 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
305 (1907); In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , 172 N.W.
Estate of Serbus v. Serbus 324 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 1982
Estate of Serbus v. Serbus 324 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 1982
We contrast this case with In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , 172 N.W.
Hafner v. Hafner 295 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1980
Hafner v. Hafner 295 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1980
305 (1907); In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , 172 N.W.
Gartner v. Gartner 74 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1956
Gartner v. Gartner 74 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1956
“The outcome of actions of this character depends on the presence or absence of influence acquired and abused, or confidence reposed and betrayed.” In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53, 58 , .
Nelson v. Dorr 58 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1953
Nelson v. Dorr 58 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1953
Alsdorf v. Svoboda, 239 Minn. 1 , 57 N. W. (2d) 824 ; Martens v. Martens, 211 Minn. 369 , 1 N. W. (2d) 356 ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , ; Buro v. Morse, 183 Minn. 518 , ; In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , .
Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
Hafner v. Hafner 54 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1952
E. g., Stanger v. Stanger, 152 Minn. 489 , ; Welsh v. Welsh, 150 Minn. 23 , ; but, see, In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , .
Kiebach v. Kiebach 35 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1948
Kiebach v. Kiebach 35 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1948
See, In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53, 60 , ; Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Mfg.
Johnson v. Johnson 27 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1947
Johnson v. Johnson 27 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1947
See, In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Mfg.
Blodgett v. Hollo 298 N.W. 249 Minn. 1941
Blodgett v. Hollo 298 N.W. 249 Minn. 1941
In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53, 60 , ; Seitz v. Union B. & M. Mfg.
Scheele v. Union Loan & Finance Co. 274 N.W. 673 Minn. 1937
Scheele v. Union Loan & Finance Co. 274 N.W. 673 Minn. 1937
In re Malchow, 143 Minn. 53, 58 , , and authorities cited.
Sjoberg v. Hartz 271 N.W. 329 Minn. 1937
Lafayette Club v. Roberts 265 N.W. 802 Minn. 1936
Lafayette Club v. Roberts 265 N.W. 802 Minn. 1936
In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Seitz v. Union B. & M. Mfg.
Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway Employees 244 N.W. 817 Minn. 1932
Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway Employees 244 N.W. 817 Minn. 1932
Malchow v. Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Seitz v. Union B. & M. Mfg.
Sheffield v. Clifford 243 N.W. 129 Minn. 1932
Sheffield v. Clifford 243 N.W. 129 Minn. 1932
Mann v. Lamb, 83 Minn. 14 , ; Kent v. Costin, 130 Minn. 450 , ; In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Seitz v. Union B. & M. Mfg.
National Surety Co. v. Wittich 242 N.W. 545 Minn. 1932
National Surety Co. v. Wittich 242 N.W. 545 Minn. 1932
(2 ed.) § 9866; In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Buro v. Morse, 183 Minn. 518 , .
Buro v. Morse 237 N.W. 186 Minn. 1931
Buro v. Morse 237 N.W. 186 Minn. 1931
In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; *522 Seitz v. Union B. & M. Mfg.
Erickson v. Frazier 210 N.W. 868 Minn. 1926
Erickson v. Frazier 210 N.W. 868 Minn. 1926
Malchow v. Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Batchelder v. Stephenson, 150 Minn. 215 , ; Wachowski v. Lutz, 184 Wis.
Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lien 204 N.W. 950 Minn. 1925
Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lien 204 N.W. 950 Minn. 1925
Peavey v. Wells, 139 Minn. 174 , ; In Re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , ; Cowee v. Cornell, 75 N. Y. 91 , 31 Am.
Stanger v. Stanger 189 N.W. 402 Minn. 1922
Stanger v. Stanger 189 N.W. 402 Minn. 1922
The cases were recently reviewed and discussed in Malchow v. Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , , where an antenuptial agreement was held valid by the trial court and its holding sustained by this court; and in Welsh v. Welsh, 150 Minn. 23 , , where such an agreement was held invalid by the trial court and its holding sustained by this court.
Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Manufacturing Co. 189 N.W. 586 Minn. 1922
Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Manufacturing Co. 189 N.W. 586 Minn. 1922
Malchow v. Malchow, 143 Minn. 53, 60 , .
Welsh v. Welsh 184 N.W. 38 Minn. 1921