Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 525.201 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 1984 [Repealed, 1985 c 250 s 27]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1970–1987 · leading case: Toombs v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Toombs v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 525.201 (1974) has remained essentially the same since 1905.”

In Re Est. of Hoigaard, 360 N.W.2d 360 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 10× “Was evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that appellant was intentionally omitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 525.201 ? 2. Did the trial court err in receiving extrinsic evidence of testator’s intent to omit appellant? ANALYSIS Minn.”

Matter of Est. of Uliscni, 372 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “Did the trial court err in finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish an intentional omission of a child under Minn. Stat. § 525.201 ? 2. In a proceeding to construe a Will to determine whether a child was intentionally omitted, did the trial court properly consider…”

In Re Est. of Ervin, 399 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “ISSUE Does the record support the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence of intentional omission was insufficient to rebut the presumption that the omission was a result of accident or mistake? ANALYSIS Under Minnesota’s omitted child statute: If a testator omits to provide…”

Hietala v. Heir of Pakarinen, 178 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 1970). “…Decisions on Equal Protection and Paternity, 36 U. of Chicago L. Rev. 338. 5 But see, Strahan v. Strahan, supra. 6 §525.201.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.