Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cole v. Healy, 293 N.W. 90.

17 citing documents.

Agner v. Bourn 161 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1968
This court said in In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , : “The existence of undue influence in a particular case is to be determined by ascertaining the effect of the influence which was in fact exerted upon the mind of the testatrix, considering her physical and mental condition, the person by whom it was exerted, the time and place and all of the surroundi
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
ey were of such a character and were made under such circumstances that they were reasonably calculated to deceive the plaintiff * * *; and the diligence and prudence that is required is such as may reasonably be expected of a person of the intelligence and capacity of the person seeking the relief.” See, also, Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 203 , 88 N. W. (2d) 73, 80 ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , .
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
9 Ferraro v. Taylor, 197 Minn. 5, 12 , ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597, 603 , ; In re Estate of Cunningham, 219 Minn. 80, 85 , 17 N. W. (2d) 85, 88 ; State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 .
In Re Estate of Anthony 265 Minn. 382 Minn. 1963
(2d) 429, 432 ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , 293 N.W.
Leuba v. Bailey 88 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1957
In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , .
Sorlie v. Thomas 51 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1952
In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597, 603 , .
Distinguished In Re Estate of Schumacher 39 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1949
The case is readily distinguishable from cases such as In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , , where the testator was a person of weakened mem tality and easily susceptible to the influence of others.
Hagerty v. Radle 37 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1949
Peoples State Bank v. Drake-Ballard Co. 164 Minn. 175 , ; Ferraro v. Taylor, 197 Minn. 5 , ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , .
Olson v. Mork 35 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1948
In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , ; Phipps v. Van Kleeck, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 541; Matter of Spratt, 11 Misc.
In Re Estate of Olson 35 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1948
In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , 293 N.W.
Teschendorf v. Strangeway 27 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1947
In re Estate of Marsden, 217 Minn. 1 , 13 N. W. (2d) 765 ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
In Re Estate of Wilson 27 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1947
In re Estate of Marsden, 217 Minn. 1 , ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , 293 N.W.
Pogue v. Fegan 17 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1944
* * * However, not having taken the stand, their conduct is not subject to the censure meted out in In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , , to an *86 attorney who assumed the dual role of witness and attorney and gave the controlling testimony in support of a will.” This court has in several instances called attention to the impropriety of counsel’s becoming a witness for his client in a case which he is trying.
In Re Estate of Cunningham 17 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1944
* * * However, not having taken the stand, their conduct is not subject to the censure meted out in In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , 293 N.W.
Marsden v. Puck 13 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
However, not having taken the stand, their conduct is not subject to the censure meted out in In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , , to an attorney who assumed the dual role of witness and attorney and gave the controlling testimony in support of a will.
In Re Estate of Marsden 13 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
However, not having taken the stand, their conduct is not subject to the censure meted out in In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , 293 N.W.
Hafner v. Schmitz 9 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1943
Claggett v. Claggett, 204 Minn. 568 , ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , ; Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, 135 Minn. 262 , .