Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Guardianship of Overpeck, 2 N.W.2d 140.

21 citing documents.

In re the Guardianship of Daniel J. Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In evaluating whether expenses sh ould be incurred on behalf of the ward, “[t]he best interests of the ward should be the decisive factor in making any choice on his behalf.” See Rickel v. Peck, 211 Minn. 576, 583
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
See In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576, 583 , (“The best interests of the ward should be the decisive factor in making any choice on his behalf.”).
Greer v. Professional Fiduciary, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Kelly v. Kelly, 304 Minn. 237 , (barring collateral attack on probate court order approving guardian’s transfer of title to property); Rickel v. Peck, 211 Minn. 576 , (barring collateral attack on probate court order allowing guardian’s intermediate account); Winjum v. Jesten, 191 Minn. 294 , 253 N.W.
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Rickel v. Peck, 211 Minn. 576, 583
In Re the Guardianship of Autio 747 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Guardianship of Autio 747 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The best interests of the ward should be the decisive factor in making any choice on his behalf.” In re Guardianship of Schober, 303 Minn. 226, 230 , (quoting In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576, 583 , ).
In re Conservatorship of Grunlund 407 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See *143 Rickel v. Peck, 211 Minn. 576, 585 , (“the statutes intend that there should be final consideration and determination of.
Matter of Estate of Kroyer 385 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The rule that a Totten trust may not be revoked by a guardian without approval of the probate court was implicitly recognized in Rickel v. Peck, 211 Minn. 576
In Re Guardianship of the Estate & Person of Schober 226 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1975
In Re Guardianship of the Estate & Person of Schober 226 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1975
In Snicker v. Byers, 176 Minn. 541, 545 , it is said: “* * * For the purpose of protecting and preserving the property of wards, the broad power of the court to take such steps as may be for the best interest of the wards, even where no pro *230 cedure therefor is prescribed by statute, cannot be seriously doubted.” And, as said in In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576, 583 , : “The best interests of the ward should be the decisive factor in making any choice on his behalf.
Barrett v. MacDonald 121 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1963
Barrett v. MacDonald 121 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1963
§ 525.481, paragraph 4; In re Estate of Lindmeyer, 182 Minn. 607, 609 , ; In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576, 585 , 2 N. W. (2d) 140, 145 .
Long v. Campion 84 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1957
Long v. Campion 84 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1957
Plaintiffs place much reliance on In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576 , 2 N. W. (2d) 140 , 138 A. L. R. 1375.
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
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
See, In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576 , 2 N. W. (2d) 140 , 138 A. L. R. 1375.
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
See, In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576 , , 138 A.L.R.
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
owever, recognized that jurisdiction of the person may not be obtained by the mere filing of a petition but only by the service of a warrant or process or by voluntary appearance; Scott v. Whitely, 168 Minn. 74 , , merely establishes that service of process is not necessary where the alleged incompetent voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction; In re Guardianship of Overpeck, 211 Minn. 576 , 2 N. W. (2d) 140 , involved jurisdiction over the property of a ward whose status as an incompeten