In Re the Estate of McCue
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHuspeni, Judge
I agree with the majority that “an order denying a motion to vacate should not be reversed unless the denial constitutes an abuse of discretion” and that the factors set forth in Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30, 53 N.W.2d 454, 455-56 (1952), are applicable to determine whether vacation is appropriate. However, because I believe there was no abuse of discretion, I would affirm each of the trial court’s determinations.
In reviewing a motion to vacate, this court’s scope of review is narrow:
A probate court’s determination of a factual question is not to be set aside…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Matter of Estate of CongdonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Charson v. Temple IsraelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- In Re Estate of WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Carter v. First Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.