Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Culver v. Hardenbergh, 33 N.W. 792.

52 citing documents.

Vesey v. Vesey 53 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1952
Vesey v. Vesey 53 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1952
11 Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 233 , ; In re Estate of Gilroy, 193 Minn. 349, 354 , .
In Re Guardianship of Kowalke 46 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1950
In Re Guardianship of Kowalke 46 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1950
Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 (234), 33 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Probate Court 283 N.W. 545 Minn. 1938
Carey v. Brown 260 N.W. 320 Minn. 1935
In Re Estate of Carey 260 N.W. 320 Minn. 1935
Carey v. Brown 260 N.W. 320 Minn. 1935
Martin v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn. 336 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Fairchild v. Marshall, 42 Minn. 14 , ; State ex rel.
In Re Estate of Gilroy 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
Pratt v. Cheney 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
Pratt v. Cheney 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
It may apply the law to the facts whether the law be statutory, common law or the principles of equity.” In Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 233 , , the court said: “So far as the statute, has prescribed a mode of procedure, the court’s supervision and control is to be exercised by doing, when necessary, the things therein prescribed.
In Re Estate of Gilroy 258 N.W. 584 Minn. 1935
In Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , 233 , 33 N.W.
In Re Estate of Martin 247 N.W. 515 Minn. 1933
In Re Estate of Martin 247 N.W. 515 Minn. 1933
Culver *410 v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
Brotton v. Donovan 224 N.W. 270 Minn. 1929
Brotton v. Donovan 224 N.W. 270 Minn. 1929
Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg.
Snicker v. Byers 224 N.W. 152 Minn. 1929
Snicker v. Byers 224 N.W. 152 Minn. 1929
Martin v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 234 , ; Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85, 91 , ; State ex rel.
Lamoreaux v. Higgins 214 N.W. 267 Minn. 1927
Lamoreaux v. Higgins 214 N.W. 267 Minn. 1927
Co. 33 Minn. 176 , , and Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
In Re Estate of Davidson 210 N.W. 40 Minn. 1926
In Re Estate of Davidson 210 N.W. 40 Minn. 1926
Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 (234), .
Appeal of Anderson v. Barlow 188 N.W. 282 Minn. 1922
Appeal of Anderson v. Barlow 188 N.W. 282 Minn. 1922
L. R. Co. 128 Minn. 112 , ; Fridley v. Farmers & M. S. Bank, 136 *252 Minn. 333 , , L. R. A. 1917E, 544; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
Heffelfinger v. Appleton 175 N.W. 105 Minn. 1919
Heffelfinger v. Appleton 175 N.W. 105 Minn. 1919
See Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
Fridley v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank 162 N.W. 454 Minn. 1917
Fridley v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank 162 N.W. 454 Minn. 1917
L. R. Co. 128 Minn. 112 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Chadbourne v. Alden, 98 Minn. 118 , .
State ex rel. Benz v. Probate Court 155 N.W. 906 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. Benz v. Probate Court 155 N.W. 906 Minn. 1916
State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236 , ; Brandes v. Carpenter, 68 Minn. 388 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mnfg.
State ex rel. Selover v. Probate Court 153 N.W. 520 Minn. 1915
State ex rel. Selover v. Probate Court 153 N.W. 520 Minn. 1915
Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Boltz v. Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , .
Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 150 N.W. 385 Minn. 1914
Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 150 N.W. 385 Minn. 1914
Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
Fiske v. Lawton 144 N.W. 455 Minn. 1913
Fiske v. Lawton 144 N.W. 455 Minn. 1913
This is pointed out by Chief Justice Gilfillan, in Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 234 , , and in the same case, at page 233, we find the following, quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Mitchell in State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 281 , , reaffirmed: “It was clearly the intention of the constitution to give the probate courts the entire and exclusive jurisdiction over
Brown v. Strom 129 N.W. 136 Minn. 1910
Brown v. Strom 129 N.W. 136 Minn. 1910
See Cone v. Hooper, 18 Minn. 476 (531); Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn. 51 ; State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; State v. Probate Court of Sibley County, 33 Minn. 94 , ; Wiswell v. Wiswell, 35 Minn. 371 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Reiser v. Gigrich, 59 Minn. 368 , ; Boltz v.Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Starkey v. Sweeney, 71 Minn. 241 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Duxbury v. Shanahan, 84 Minn. 353 , ; Appleby v.
Hanson v. Nygaard 117 N.W. 235 Minn. 1908
Hanson v. Nygaard 117 N.W. 235 Minn. 1908
State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mnfg.
Fowler v. Jenks 95 N.W. 887 Minn. 1903
Fowler v. Jenks 95 N.W. 887 Minn. 1903
See also Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
Starkey v. Sweeney 73 N.W. 859 Minn. 1898
Starkey v. Sweeney 73 N.W. 859 Minn. 1898
The district court has no original jurisdiction as to these matters., Jacobs v. Fouse, 28 Minn. 51 ; State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Boltz v. Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Luse v. Reed, 63 Minn. 11 , .
Boltz v. Schutz 64 N.W. 48 Minn. 1895
Boltz v. Schutz 64 N.W. 48 Minn. 1895
State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , .
Barber v. Bowen 49 N.W. 684 Minn. 1891
Barber v. Bowen 49 N.W. 684 Minn. 1891
And there was nothing said in Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.
State ex rel. Dana v. Probate Court 41 N.W. 1033 Minn. 1889
State ex rel. Dana v. Probate Court 41 N.W. 1033 Minn. 1889
Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 235, 236 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.