DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the ESTATE OF Esther Caroline SULLIVAN, Decedent, 868 N.W.2d 750.

29 citing documents.

  • In re the Estate of Stephen Singer, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    (applying mixed-question- of-law-and-fact standard to district court’s decision in probate matter).
  • Alexander Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    And “[w]hen reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted); see also Thompson v. St.
  • Monica Mohn, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).
  • A24-0715 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).
  • In re the Estate of Roger Abrahamson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • In re the Estate of Roger Abrahamson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    But “[w]hether a will is executed in a manner prescribed by statute is a question of fact[,]” and “findings of fact will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).
  • Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).
  • ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee LLC dba Extended Stay America Suites-Eden Prairie-Valley View Road, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re Est. of Sullivan , (quotation omitted) .
  • Pioneer Apartments LLLP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    “When revi ewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.”
  • In the Matter of the Application of Mojtaba Sharifkhani to Register Title to Certain Land. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).
  • Ramsey County Attorney, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • Central Towers Limited Partnership, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).
  • A21-0035 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    (concluding district court abused discretion by not removing trustee 8 after trustee failed to act in best interests of beneficiaries); In re Estate of Sullivan , (stating , in context of will con test, that we review district court’s ultimate conclusions for abuse of discretion).
  • Jodi D. Campbell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    See In re Estate of Sullivan , (explaining that under the abuse of discretion standard, we accord discretion to the district court’s ultimate conclusions).
  • LVNV Funding, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    When reviewing mixed questions, we correct an erroneous application of law but otherwise afford the district court due discreti on in its “ultimate conclusions.” (quotation omitted).
  • A19-1347 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correc t erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).
  • In re the Estate of: Norman Sebert Larson, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • In re the Supervised Estate of: Brian Scott Short, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    However, “[w]hen reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” d 750, 754 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation omitted).
  • McKraut Holdings, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “W hen reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district 10 court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re Estate of Sullivan , (quotation omitted).
  • A18-0742 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement By and Between Eugene V. Stowell and Shirley Marie … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See In re Estate of Sullivan
  • Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord, the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.”' (quotation omitted).
  • Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See, (construing portion of Uniform Probate Code consistently “with other jurisdictions that have adopted a similar provision” of the Code); see Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2016) (“Laws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the
  • Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Because the issue of whether the truck is a “consumer product” presents a mixed question of law and fact, “we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” (quotation omitted).