Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re the Estate of McCue

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 2, 1990No. CX-89-809Published

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

  1. Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  2. Matter of Estate of CongdonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Charson v. Temple IsraelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. In Re Estate of WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  5. Carter v. First Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API