Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393.

32 citing documents.

Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
P. 39.02, 52.01; see In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393, 404 , (noting that an advisory jury’s role is “only to advise the court and its findings are merely to reinforce the court’s own decision on the disputed fact — not to supplant it”).
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393, 404
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
An advisory jury’s findings are advisory only and “ ‘are merely to reinforce the court’s own decision on the disputed facts— not to supplant it.’” , 288 (Minn.App.1990) (quoting In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , 404, ), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Pedro v. Pedro 463 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Pedro v. Pedro 463 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393, 404
Franke v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Franke v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393, 401
Shea v. Hanna Mining Co. 397 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Shea v. Hanna Mining Co. 397 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , rev’d on other grounds
Yliniemi v. Mausolf 371 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Yliniemi v. Mausolf 371 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
104 (1940); See also In Re Murphy’s Estate, 269 Minn. 393, 406
Sigurdson v. Isanti County 363 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sigurdson v. Isanti County 363 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393
Matter of Estate of Moulton 365 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Estate of Moulton 365 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393, 404-06 , -28 (1964).
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc. 330 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1983
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc. 330 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1983
39.02; In Re Murphy’s Estate, 269 Minn. 393, 404
Gollner v. Champagne 260 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1977
Gollner v. Champagne 260 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1977
See, In re Estate of Liberopulos, 245 Minn. 553, 562 , which holds that an attestation requirement may be met by acknowledgment of a testator’s signature; accord, In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393, 402
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
See, In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , Bush v. Havir, 253 Minn. 318, 331 , Schwartz v. First Trust Co. of St.
Johnson v. Heltne 214 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1974
Johnson v. Heltne 214 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1974
In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , In re Estate of Holden, 261 Minn. 527 , In re Estate of Coleman, 192 Minn. 86 , Lott v. Lott, 174 Minn. 13 , Baxter v. Baxter, 136 Minn. 59 , Hennes v. Huston, 81 Minn. 30
Blank v. Kramer 194 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1972
In Re Estate of Reiland 194 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1972
In Re Estate of Reiland 194 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1972
NOTES [1] To the same effect is In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , and Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 39.02.
Blank v. Kramer 194 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1972
To the same effect is In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , and Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 39.02.
ENGLER BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. L'Allier 159 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1968
ENGLER BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. L'Allier 159 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1968
See, Wormsbecker v. Donovan Const. Co. 251 Minn. 277 , 87 N. W. (2d) 660 ; Reed v. Riddle Airlines (5 Cir.) 266 F. (2d) 314; In re Estate of Murphy, 269 Minn. 393 , 131 N. W. (2d) 220 .