Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 525.551 (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[Repealed]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MS 2002 [Repealed, 2003 c 12 art 2 s 8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1984–2003 · leading case: In Re Conservatorship of Lundgaard, 453 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
In Re Conservatorship of Lundgaard, 453 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subds. 3, 5 (1988); 1982 Minn.”
In Re Conservatorship of Foster, 547 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 1996). “1 (1994); Minn. Stat. § 525.551 , subd. 3 (1994). The standard of proof is that of clear and convincing evidence.”
Schmidt v. Hebeisen, 347 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551 (1982). The Minnesota Supreme Court has long held that the appointment of a guardian is a matter peculiarly for and within the discretion of the appointing court.”
In Re Conservatorship of Kocemba, 429 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “See Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 3 (1986). Such findings are needed pursuant to Minn.”
In Re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 5 (1990); see also In re Conservatorship of Lundgaard, 453 N.”
In re the Conservatorship of Edelman, 448 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “1 See- *545 ond, Edelman contends there was insuffi-eient evidence to show in addition to her incapacitation, there was also need for a conservator as required by Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 5 (1988). 2 Finally, Edel-man contends the conservatorship violates her constitutionally…”
In Re Conservatorship of Smith, 655 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 3 (2000). Adherence to the rules of civil procedure enables all *820 parties to conduct discovery, thereby allowing for an orderly, expeditious, and effective means of developing the record for the district court’s determination of the best interests…”
In re Conservatorship of Edwards, 390 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 1 (1984). Since David, Sr.”
In Re the Guardianship of Mikulanec, 356 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 1984). “The Guardianship/Conservatorship Statute Only after showing by “clear and convincing evidence,” Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 3 (1982), that an individual is “impaired to the extent that he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions…”
In Re Guardianship of Kowalski, 382 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 5 (1984). Donald Kowalski argues his confirmation as guardian is proper because he is the ward’s father and therefore has unconditional parental love for his daughter.”
Oller v. Oller-Chiang, 646 A.2d 822 (Conn. 1994). “1991), the Minnesota Appellate Court interpreted a statute that instructed the court to “make a finding that appointment of the person chosen as guardian or conservator is in the best interests of the ward”; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 525.551 (5); where “best interests” was defined as…”
In Re Conservatorships of T.L.R., 375 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551, subd. 6 (1984) provides in part: In case of breach of a condition of the bond an action thereon may be prosecuted by leave of the court by any interested person or by the court on its own motion.”
— Minn. Stat. § 525.551(5) — 1 case
Schmidt v. Hebeisen, 347 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “Minn.Stat. § 525.551 (1982). The Minnesota Supreme Court has long held that the appointment of a guardian is a matter peculiarly for and within the discretion of the appointing court.”
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.