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 v. Arroyo Insurance Services, Inc. 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 v. City Homes on Park Avenue Owners’ Association 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).
Mary Engel, as Trustee of the Blackwood Trust, et al. (A23-1964) (A24-0715) v. Vicky Jo Ulvestad, et al. … 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, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Estate of Roger Abrahamson, Deceased 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, et al v. County of Le Sueur, et al., Daniel J. Sullivan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dale LeRoy Tiede, et al v. County of Le Sueur, et al., 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 v. Jessie Lin 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 v. Erica Shannon, John Doe, Jane Doe 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 v. $139,630.00 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Central Towers Limited Partnership v. Norman Schiffman 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).
In the Matter of the Kurt A. Amplatz Funding Trust Dated April 11, 2014, as Amended (A21-0034) and … 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 v. John J. Larson 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 v. Joionda Wilks 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).
In re the Estate of: Frank Joseph Soboleski, Deceased, and In re the Estate of: Renee Maxine Soboleski, … 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 v. Cynthia Tomenes, et al 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).
Cindy Moshier v. Roger B. Jarvis 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).