Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Guardianship of Dawson, 502 N.W.2d 65.

24 citing documents.

Sylvester L. Zurn, individually and as beneficiary of the Sylvester L. Zurn Trust, dated December 30, 2002, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Krueger v. Zoch , -21 (Minn. 1969) (affirming district court’s determination that contract was void where one of the parties was incompetent at signing); 9 (same), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Guardianship of: Doris Anita Seward Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Guardianship of: Doris Anita Seward Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A person is competent to enter a contract if they have “the ability to understand to a reasonable extent the nature and effect of what she is doing.” d 65, 68 (Minn. App. 1993) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Fisher v. Schefers 656 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Fisher v. Schefers 656 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
965, 966 (1921) (holding a contract with a person of unsound mind will not be set aside where it appears that it was entered into in good faith, for fair consideration, and without notice to the other party of facts sufficient to put a prudent person upon inquiry as to such mental incapacity); review denied (Minn. Aug.
Heidbreder v. Carton 636 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Heidbreder v. Carton 636 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and will not be reversed on appeal unless the reviewing court is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In Re the Welfare of M.J.L. 582 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of M.J.L. 582 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
review denied (Minn. Aug.
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski 554 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski 554 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Further, this court “will only reverse a trial court’s findings of fact if, upon review of the entire evidence, it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Carlson Real Estate Co. v. Soltan 549 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carlson Real Estate Co. v. Soltan 549 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
This court will reverse a trial court’s findings of fact if, “upon review of the entire evidence, we are ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” (), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 531 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 531 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Finally, this court will only reverse a trial court’s findings of fact if, upon review of the entire evidence, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (), pet.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 14 v. City of St. Paul 533 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 14 v. City of St. Paul 533 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
[T]his court will only reverse a trial court’s findings of fact if, upon review of the entire evidence, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” (), pet.
United Products Corp. v. Atlas Auto Parts 529 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
United Products Corp. v. Atlas Auto Parts 529 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(appellate review limited to issues presented to and decided by trial court), pet.
Jensen v. Hercules, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Jensen v. Hercules, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Riley on Behalf of Swanson v. Herbes 524 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Riley on Behalf of Swanson v. Herbes 524 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(reviewing court will reverse district court’s factual determination only if it is clearly erroneous), pet.