Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Olson, 35 N.W.2d 439.

27 citing documents.

In re: Ratzlaff Family Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court has observed that “u ndue influence is not usually open and visible” because it “is commonly exercised behind the scene.” In re Olson’s Estate, (quotation omitted).
In Re: R.A. Morin Trust, U/A/D, April 1, 2014, As Amended, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Where conflicting evidence of undue influence is presented, we regard the district court’s findings as “final on appeal, even though the appellate court, if it had the power to try the questions de novo, might determine other wise upon reading of the record.” In re Olson’s Est ., d 439, 444 (Minn. 1948) (emphasis omitted).
In re: Estate of Maryetta Louise Andrews. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If evidence regarding undue influence is conflicting, the district court’s findings are “final on appeal, even though the appellate court, if it had the power to try the questions de novo, might determine otherwise upon reading of the record.” In re Olson’s Est.
In re the Estate of Vernon G. Engelkes, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When evidence conflicts on undue influence, the district court’s findings are “final on appeal, even though the appellate court if it had the power to try the questions de novo, might determine otherwise upon reading of the record .” Olson v. Mork (In re Olson ’s Estate)
A20-0508 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See In re Olson’s Estate, see also Forsythe, d at 22-23 (stating whether decedent’s “progressive deterioration of mind .
In re the Estate of: Norman Sebert Larson, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re: the Estate of LaVonne Ruth Anderson-Stewart, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2018
is conflicting, fin dings of the [district] court with respect to such questions are final on appeal, even though the appellate court, if it had the power to try the questions de novo, might determine otherwise upon reading of the record.” In re Estate of Olson , 227 Minn. 28 9, 295
In re the Estate of Harry L. Housker, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of Harry L. Housker, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Estate of Olson, 227 Minn. 289, 295
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An entire change from former testamentary intentions is a strong circumstance to support a charge of undue influence.” In re Olson’s Estate, 227 Minn. 289, 298
In Re the Estate of Opsahl 448 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Estate of Opsahl 448 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See In re Estate of Olson, 227 Minn. 289, 298, (where a change in a will benefits a party charged with exercising undue influence, the change “is a strong circumstance to support a charge of undue influence.”).
Matter of Estate of Olsen 357 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Estate of Olsen 357 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See also In re Estate of Olson, 227 Minn. 289, 297 , -46 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke 167 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1969
Agner v. Bourn 161 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1968
In Re Estate of Anthony 265 Minn. 382 Minn. 1963
Gaertner v. Rees 107 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1961
In Re Estate of Reay 249 Minn. 123 Minn. 1957
Vangen v. Nelson 69 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1955
State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
Bystrom v. Palmer 57 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1953
Cade v. Hoff 54 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1952
Borstad v. Ulstad 45 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1951
Land O' Lakes Dairy Co. v. County of Wadena 39 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1949