Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mogan v. Carter, 51 N.W. 614.

24 citing documents.

Matter of Estate of Anderson 379 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See In re Estate of Holden; In re Estate of Reay; In re Estate of Meehan; In re Will of Hess, 48 Minn. 504
Sullivan v. Brown 31 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1948
In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 A. S. R. 665; In re Estate of Jenks, 164 Minn. 377 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Mazanec v. Huna 283 N.W. 745 Minn. 1939
In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9, 11 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73, 76 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504, 512 , , 31 A. S. R. 665; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181, 182 , ; In re Estate of Jenks, 164 Minn. 377, 383 , .
In Re Estate of Mazanec 283 N.W. 745 Minn. 1939
885 ; In re Hess' Will, 48 Minn. 504 , 512 , , 31 A.S.R.
In Re Estate of Mollan 232 N.W. 1 Minn. 1930
In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 A. S. R. 665; In re Estate of Brewster, 150 Minn. 86 , ; Rasmussen v. Evans, 150 Minn. 319 , 185 N. W. *219 297; In re Estate of Jenks, 164 Minn. 377 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
In Re Estate of Enyart 230 N.W. 781 Minn. 1930
1 Page, Wills (2 ed.) § 745; In re Will of Nagel, 167 Minn. 63 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 A. S. R. 665.
In Re Estate of Jenks 205 N.W. 271 Minn. 1925
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; In Re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Lovell v. Marshall 202 N.W. 64 Minn. 1925
Lovell v. Marshall 202 N.W. 64 Minn. 1925
Notwithstanding his vigorous dissent, in Mogan v. Carter, 48 Minn. 501 , , the court adhered to its former ruling, referring to the doctrine, in New England M. L. I. v. Capehart, 63 Minn. 120 , , as the strict equity rule recognized by a majority of the court in the two cases cited.
In re the Estate of Jernberg 190 N.W. 990 Minn. 1922
If there be no mental infirmity (Foster v. Dearborn, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Wood v. Connell 184 N.W. 955 Minn. 1921
Walso v. Latterner, 143 Minn. 364 , ; Woodville v. Morrill, 130 Minn. 92 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Kroschel v. Drusch 164 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1917
In re Timothy Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Thill v. Freiermuth 156 N.W. 260 Minn. 1916
Woodville v. Morrill 153 N.W. 131 Minn. 1915
In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Buck v. Buck 142 N.W. 729 Minn. 1913
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Burmeister v. Gust 135 N.W. 980 Minn. 1912
In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Howard v. Farr 131 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1911
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Kletschka v. Kletschka 129 N.W. 372 Minn. 1911
In re Hess, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Tyner v. Varien 106 N.W. 898 Minn. 1906
In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , ; In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.
Fischer v. Sperl 103 N.W. 502 Minn. 1905
Inasmuch as, however, the force of the reasoning involved is not naturally confined to any particular class of cases, and inasmuch as proof of undue influence on a testator must concern things hidden from ordinary knowledge, and provable in large measure by circumstances only (In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , ; Shepardson v. Potter [Mich.]
Prescott v. Johnson 97 N.W. 891 Minn. 1904
In re Nelson, 39 Minn. 205 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; Graham v. Burch, 44 Minn. 33 , ; In re Hess, 48 Minn. 504 , .
Palmer v. Yorks 79 N.W. 587 Minn. 1899
Palmer v. Yorks 79 N.W. 587 Minn. 1899
Appellants contend that, as against the prior recorded deed to plaintiff Whaley, the deed to Senrick, and the deed from him to Yorks, were void on their face, and, as the court found, void in fact, and it follows that they were no cloud on plaintiffs’ title, and therefore this action cannot be maintained; citing Mogan v. Carter, 48 Minn. 501 , ; and Maloney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn. 70 , .
Foster v. Dearborn 51 N.W. 614 Minn. 1892