Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Whitney v. Daniel, 208 Minn. 420.

19 citing documents.

State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
See, e.g., Stotzheim v. Djos, 256 Minn. 316 , 319 n. 2, , 131 n. 2 (1959); Anderson, 222 Minn. at 432 , d at 839 ; In re Daniel’s Estate, 208 Minn. 420, 425-26 , 294 N.W.
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
431, 432-33 (1924) where, in the context of addressing a tolling argument, we said that “[i]t is a fundamental principle that remedies are governed by the law of the forum, and this principle is controlling in all matters relating to the statute of limitations.” In Whitney v. Daniel (In re Estate of Daniel), 208 Minn. 420, 420-22 , 294 N.W.
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co. v. Reed Cleaners, 265 Minn. 503 , 506 n. 1, , 180 n. 1 (1963); In re Daniel’s Estate, 208 Minn. 420 , 429, 294 N.W.
Danielson v. National Supply Co. 670 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In re Daniel’s Estate, 208 Minn. 420, 427 , 294 N.W.
Brett v. Watts 601 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“A general statute of limitation does not condition rights”, but “simply prescribes the time within which rights may be enforced.” In re Daniel’s Estate, 208 Minn. 420, 429 , 294 N.W.
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
It is the law of Minnesota that “[t]he limitation of time within which an action may be brought relates to the remedy and is governed by the law of the forum.” In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420, 427 , 294 N.W.
Valley Farmers' Elevator v. Lindsay Bros. 398 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1987
In re Daniels’ Estate, 208 Minn. 420 , 294 N.W.
Severson v. Engbarth 135 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1965
See, for instance, In re Estate of Woodworth, 207 Minn. 563 , ; In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420 , , where we rely in part on In re Gragg, supra, and In re Hause, supra; In re Estate of Showell, 209 Minn; 539, ; In re Estate of Gooch, 212 Minn. 272 , 3 N. W. (2d) 494 .
Barrett v. MacDonald 121 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1963
In re Estate of Henry, 207 Minn. 609, 613 , ; In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420, 432 , ; In re Estate of Gooch, 212 Minn. 272, 274 , 3 N. W. (2d) 494, 495 ; In re Estate of Simon, 187 Minn. 399, 409 , , 35.
Allen v. Nessler 76 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1956
Allen v. Nessler 76 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1956
In In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420 , , Dorothy Phillips and Chester T. Daniel were both residents of Minnesota.
Berghuis v. Korthuis 37 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1949
150; Bond v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 124 Minn. 195 , ; In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420 , ; Cashman v. Hedberg, 215 Minn. 463 , 10 N. W. (2d) 388 ; see, also, 16 Am.
Cashman v. Hedberg 10 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1943
In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420, at 429 , et seq., ; The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 , 7 S. Ct. 140 , 30 L. ed. 358; Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233 , 42 S. Ct. 89 , 66 L. ed. 210; Bement v. Grand Rapids & I. Ry.
Peters v. Walling 3 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1942
In Re Estate of Gooch 3 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1942
In Re Estate of Gooch 3 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1942
249 ; In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420 , 432 , 294 N.W.
Peters v. Walling 3 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1942
t court in like or similar matters”; and that, “like the district court,” *275 it is “authorized by our constitution and the common law to correct at any time clerical errors, to clarify ambiguities, and make its judgments read as they were intended.” In re Estate of Jordan, 199 Minn. 53, 58 , ; In re Estate of Henry, 207 Minn. 609, 612 , ; In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420, 432 , ; In re Estate of Showell, 209 Minn. 539, 541, 542 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
In Re Estate of Showell 297 N.W. 111 Minn. 1941
In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420 , 294 N.W.
Minneapolis Branch v. Saucier 297 N.W. 111 Minn. 1941
Cf. In re Estate of Daniel, 208 Minn. 420 , .