green
Positive treatment
9.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1912 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1912
1969
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In re the Estate of Margaret Peteler Bush, a/k/a Margaret Bush
But see Slingerland v. Slingerland, 132 N.W. 326, 328 (Minn. 1911) (determining that consideration was “pitifully inadequate” where husband and wife had been married 20 years, had four living children at the time of husband’s death, and enforcing the agreement would leave the wife “penniless”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kremer v. Kremer
(2×)
See In re Estate of Serbus , 324 N.W.2d 381 , 385 (Minn. 1982) (examining the value of the deceased husband's estate and the wife's share under the agreement); Slingerland , 132 N.W. at 328 (noting that the husband and wife had been married 20 years and had four living children at the time of his death).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re the Estate of Kinney
Clearly the burden rested upon defendant to overcome this presumption, to show there was no fraud or concealment, and that plaintiff knew the extent, character, and value of his property and the nature and extent of her rights as his wife and widow. 115 Minn. at 274-75 , 132 N.W. at 328 (emphasis added); see also Welsh, 150 Minn. at 25 , 184 N.W. at 39 (“The entire absence of provision for plaintiff has been held * * * to impose upon the husband the burden of showing, if he would sustain the contract, that there was no fraud or concealment, and that the prospective wife knew the extent, char…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marriage of Rudbeck v. Rudbeck
In order to overcome this presumption, the proponent, not contestant, must “show there was no fraud or concealment, and that [the other party] knew the extent, character, and value of his property and the nature and extent of her rights as his wife and widow.” Slingerland v. Slingerland, 115 Minn. 270, 275 , 132 N.W. 326, 328 (1911).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marriage of Hill v. Hill
At common law, to overcome the presumption of fraud, the proponent, not the contestant, has the burden of showing “there was no fraud or concealment, and that [the other party] knew the extent, character and value of his property and the nature and extent of her rights as his wife and widow.” Slingerland v. Slingerland, 115 Minn. 270, 275 , 132 N.W. 326, 328 (1911).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gartner v. Gartner
See, In re Estate of Malchow, supra. 7 In re Estate of Malchow, supra. 8 Slingerland v. Slingerland, 115 Minn. 270 , 132 N. W. 326 . 9 Slingerland v. Slingerland, supra; Welsh v. Welsh, 150 Minn. 23 , 184 N. W. 38 . 10 Slingerland v. Slingerland, supra. 11 In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , 57 to 59, 172 N. W. 915 , 916 to 917. 12 In re Estate of Malchow, supra; Hosford v. Rowe, 41 Minn. 245 , 42 N. W. 1018 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ORRIN D. KINNEY
v.
EMIL MUNCH and Others
v.
EMIL MUNCH and Others
Nos. 17,118, 17,132—(202, 204).
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Aug 4, 1911.
J. W, Reynolds, for appellants., Durment, Moore & Sanborn and J. N. Searles, for respondents.
Lewis, Took.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Per Curiam.
The’ decision in the case of Simons v. Munch, supra, page 360, 132 N. W. 321, controls this case.
Judgment reversed on appeal of plaintiff and allied interveners, and case remanded, with directions to the trial court to amend its conclusions of law in accordance with the opinion in the case of Simons v. Munch, and to order judgment accordingly.
Affirmed on appeal of intervener Taylor.
Lewis, J., absent, took no part.