Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Smith v. Tolversen, 252 N.W. 423.

30 citing documents.

In re: Trust of Phyllis Gene Jones, Settlor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410, 413, 252 N.W.
In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The trustee’s “primary duty [is] not to allow his interest as an individual even the opportunity of conflict with his interest as trustee.” Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410, 413 , 252 N.W.
Plunkett v. Lampert 43 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1950
Plunkett v. Lampert 43 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1950
Bank, 198 Minn. 562 , ; Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , .
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
The self-dealing involved a breach of the trustees' duty of undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries (Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , 252 N.W.
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
The self-dealing involved a breach of the trustees’ duty of undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries (Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , ; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
Lewis v. Lewis 2 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1942
Lewis v. Lewis 2 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1942
Cf. Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , (defendant there was a trustee of two express trusts, but the duty owing ivas sufficiently similar to make the rule applicable).
Eriksson v. Palm 297 N.W. 765 Minn. 1941
In Re Estate of Palm 297 N.W. 765 Minn. 1941
In Re Estate of Palm 297 N.W. 765 Minn. 1941
Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , 252 N.W.
Eriksson v. Palm 297 N.W. 765 Minn. 1941
Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , .
Reed v. Goblirsch 294 N.W. 222 Minn. 1940
In Re Estate of Baker 294 N.W. 222 Minn. 1940
In Re Estate of Baker 294 N.W. 222 Minn. 1940
Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , 413 , 252 N.W.
Reed v. Goblirsch 294 N.W. 222 Minn. 1940
“ ‘Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive,’ is the standard of his behavior.” Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410, 413 , .
Whitten v. Wright 289 N.W. 509 Minn. 1939
Whitten v. Wright 289 N.W. 509 Minn. 1939
See, generally, Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , ; Holmes v. Cathcart, 88 Minn. 213 , , 60 L. R. A. 734, 97 A. S. R. 513; Hegenmyer v. Marks, 37 Minn. 6 , , 5 A. S. R. 808; Harmony Way Bridge Co. v. Leathers, 353 Ill.
Clarke v. Bennett 284 N.W. 876 Minn. 1939
In Re Trust Under Will of Clarke 284 N.W. 876 Minn. 1939
Distinguished Clarke v. Bennett 284 N.W. 876 Minn. 1939
Paul Trust Co. v. Strong, 85 Minn. 1 , , and the other cases cited by respondent on this point, including Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , , are distinguishable.
Malcolmson v. Goodhue County National Bank 270 N.W. 157 Minn. 1936
Malcolmson v. Goodhue County National Bank 270 N.W. 157 Minn. 1936
256 ; Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , 252 N.W.
In Re Estate of Janke 258 N.W. 311 Minn. 1935
Janke v. Espenson 258 N.W. 311 Minn. 1935
Janke v. Espenson 258 N.W. 311 Minn. 1935
The courts ought, in the interests of the administration of justice, to see to it that the standard of duty in such matters is not lowered, even if the parties *205 themselves are disposed to overlook or condone a departure from the strict line of duty.” Again, in Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410, 413 , , Mr. Justice Stone said: “Before going further with the facts, it is well to repeat as premise of decision that ‘a trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place.
In Re Estate of Janke 258 N.W. 311 Minn. 1935
Again, in Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , 413 , 252 N.W.