DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Wretlind, 32 N.W.2d 161.

25 citing documents.

  • Aaron Carlson Corp. v. Cohen 919 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Greer v. Prof'l Fiduciary, Inc. , , 127 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting In re Wretlind , 225 Minn. 554 , , 168 (1948) ); see also Black's Law Dictionary 298 (9th ed. 2009) (defining "collateral attack" as an "attack on a judgment in a proceeding other than a direct appeal").
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
    See In re Wretlind , 225 Minn. 554 , , 168 (Minn. 1948) (stating that a collateral attack is "every proceeding in which the integrity of the judgment is challenged" (citation omitted) ); see also Collateral attack , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("An attack on a judgment in a proceeding other than a direct appeal....").
  • Greer v. Professional Fiduciary, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Greer v. Professional Fiduciary, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    A collateral attack includes “every proceeding in which the integrity of the judgment is challenged” in a separate action “except suits brought to obtain decrees declaring judgment to be void ab initio.” In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554, 564 , (quotations omitted); see Black’s Law Dictionary 298 (9th ed.2009) (defining a “collateral attack” as “[a]n attack on a judgment in a proceeding other than a direct appeal; esp., an attempt to undermine a judgment through a judicial proceeding in which the gr
  • Johnson v. Wright 682 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Johnson v. Wright 682 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    See In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554, 563, (stating that where there is conflicting interest between a minor and person representing her, the person whose interest is adverse to the minor’s interest should not be appointed guardian ad litem, or permitted to act as the next friend of the minor).
  • Matter of Grafstrom 490 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Matter of Grafstrom 490 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Anderson v. United States Veterans Hosp., 268 Minn. 213, 221 , -17 (1964) (person with respect to whom petition for commitment is filed is entitled to reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard); In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554, 561 , -67 (1948) (before incompetent infant may be placed in custody, adequate notice of hearing and purpose of hearing must be served on minor through a guardian or representative named by court).
  • State Ex Rel. Hartmann v. Lund 152 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1967
  • State Ex Rel. Hartmann v. Lund 152 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1967
    It was determined in In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N. W. (2d) 161 , that the original order of commitment can be attacked in proceedings for restoration instituted under Minn. St.
  • Campbell v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 142 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1966
  • Campbell v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 142 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1966
    We have also carefully considered the following Minnesota cases: In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N. W. (2d) 161 ; State ex rel.
  • In Re Leary's Appeal 136 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1965
  • Walker v. Leary 136 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1965
  • Walker v. Leary 136 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1965
    Appellant relies for support of this contention on In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N. W. (2d) 161 , in which we dealt with a proceeding for restoration to capacity of a minor.
  • In Re Leary's Appeal 136 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1965
    Appellant relies for support of this contention on In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , , in which we dealt with a proceeding for restoration to capacity of a minor.
  • State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans Hospital 128 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1964
  • State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans Hospital 128 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1964
    It was determined by In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N. W. (2d) 161 , that the original order of commitment can be attacked in proceedings for restoration instituted under this section.
  • State Ex Rel. Hussman v. Hursh 92 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1958
  • State Ex Rel. Hussman v. Hursh 92 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1958
    * * * * * * * * “* * * no distinction can be made as to the necessity and sufficiency of notice and opportunity to be heard as between normal and abnormal persons.” In In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N. W. (2d) 161 , we held that, in proceedings relative to the incompetency of an infant, constitutional provisions for due process required appointment of a guardian for the infant prior to the proceedings and service of adequate notice upon such guardian with respect thereto, even though there w
  • In Re Adoption of Anderson 50 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1951
  • Nelson v. Gibson 50 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1951
  • In Re Adoption of Anderson 50 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1951
    Appellant contends, however, under the authority of In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N.W.
  • Nelson v. Gibson 50 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1951
    Appellant contends, however, under the authority of In re Wretlind, 225 Minn. 554 , 32 N. W. (2d) 161 (wherein the mother appeared as an adversary), that, because the probate court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child, it was, under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, without jurisdiction to make the order committing the child to the guardianship of the so