Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Sangren, 504 N.W.2d 786.

27 citing documents.

Mitchell David Schultz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. Stat. § 524.1- 302(b) (2024) (providing that the district court in a probate proceeding “has full powe r to make orders, judgments and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which come before it”); d 786, 789 (Minn. App. 1993) (reiterating that the district court in a probate proceeding has the “power to hear and finally dispose of all matters relevant to determination of the extent 5 of the decedent’s estate and of the claims against it
In Re the Custody of: X. W. F., Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(observing that a question of waiver of a known right is decided as a matter of law when the facts are not in dispute) , rev. denied (Minn. 6 Oct.
Randy Hook, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Washington County CDA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-0507 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
action necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which come before it.” Minn. Stat. § 524.1-302 (2018); (concluding that the “[district] court has jurisdiction over all problems that arise in resolving an estate except those issues excluded by statute”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See In re Estate of Sangren , , 788 n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (declining to consider issue previously addressed by this court at special term), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (declining to consider issue decided by special-term panel), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Vitamin v. Misha Gordin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Vitamin v. Misha Gordin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (refusing to reconsider issue on appeal that was previously ruled on by special term panel); Minn. R. Civ.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ricardo Ray Johnson. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ricardo Ray Johnson. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
App. P. 140.01 (stating that there is no rehearing in the court of appeals)
In re: Receivership of United States Installment Realty Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: Receivership of United States Installment Realty Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a question of whether a waiver existed can be decided “as a matter of law where the facts are not in dispute”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita v. Thomas Parrish Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita v. Thomas Parrish Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The probate court also has jurisdiction “over all problems that arise in resolving an estate except those issues excluded by statute.”
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
App. P. 140.01; n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (refusing to consider an issue on cross-appeal that was ruled on previously by a special term panel), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 744 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 744 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co. Inc., superseded by statute, 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 435, § 1, at 257, and .
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Similarly, the auto glass companies cite review denied (Minn. Oct.
Westminster Corp. v. Anderson 536 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Westminster Corp. v. Anderson 536 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Comm’n, (a reviewing court is not bound by the district court’s decision on a purely legal question); (the question of waiver may be decided as a matter of law where the facts are not in dispute), pet.