Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Glassberg v. Olson, 94 N.W. 554.

39 citing documents.

Lewin v. Proehl 300 N.W. 814 Minn. 1941
Lewin v. Proehl 300 N.W. 814 Minn. 1941
The argument for defendant is that, if admitted, it would have tended to show that defendant’s version of the matter had more probability of truth than plaintiff’s. Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .
Bisping v. Kummer Auto Co. 277 N.W. 255 Minn. 1938
Bisping v. Kummer Auto Co. 277 N.W. 255 Minn. 1938
The cases of Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Thomsen v. Union Loan & Finance Co. 198 Minn. 137 , , may be cited as supporting the rulings.
State v. Hankins, Alias Lewis 258 N.W. 578 Minn. 1935
State v. Hankins, Alias Lewis 258 N.W. 578 Minn. 1935
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .
Keyser v. Roberts 257 N.W. 503 Minn. 1934
State v. Lynch 257 N.W. 278 Minn. 1934
State v. Lynch 257 N.W. 278 Minn. 1934
See also Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .
Patzwald v. Patrick 248 N.W. 43 Minn. 1933
Patzwald v. Patrick 248 N.W. 43 Minn. 1933
It Avas held in Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , , that whenever there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses relevant to the issue, evidence of collateral facts Avhich have a direct tendency to show that the statements of the witnesses on one side of the issue are more reasonable and therefore more credible than those on the opposite side is adm
Baltrusch v. Braulick 236 N.W. 924 Minn. 1931
Baltrusch v. Braulick 236 N.W. 924 Minn. 1931
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Farmers & M. Nat.
Luebke v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. 226 N.W. 415 Minn. 1929
Luebke v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. 226 N.W. 415 Minn. 1929
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .
State v. McClendon 214 N.W. 782 Minn. 1927
State v. McClendon 214 N.W. 782 Minn. 1927
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
That sort of testimony opened the way to any evidence, even of collateral nature (Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ), having a fair tendency to show *14 who was telling the truth.
Farmers Merchants nat.bank of Ivanhoe v. Przymus 200 N.W. 931 Minn. 1924
Farmers Merchants nat.bank of Ivanhoe v. Przymus 200 N.W. 931 Minn. 1924
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Sonnesyn v. Hawbaker, 127 Minn. 15 , 148 N. *88 W. 476; State Elev.
Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 200 N.W. 922 Minn. 1924
Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 200 N.W. 922 Minn. 1924
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Philips v. Mo.
State Elevator Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 399 Minn. 1916
State Elevator Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 399 Minn. 1916
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195, 197 , .
Sonnesyn v. Hawbaker 148 N.W. 476 Minn. 1914
Sonnesyn v. Hawbaker 148 N.W. 476 Minn. 1914
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Dalby v. Lauritzen, 98 Minn. 75 , ; Humphrey v. Monida & Yellowstone Stage Co. 115 Minn. 18 , .
Farmer v. Studebaker Corp. of America 148 N.W. 285 Minn. 1914
Farmer v. Studebaker Corp. of America 148 N.W. 285 Minn. 1914
Under the rule applied in Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , , the circular might properly have been received as tending to explain the conduct of the manager; but the reception of such evidence rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and we cannot say that such discretion was abused in the present instance.
Van Cappellan v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 148 N.W. 104 Minn. 1914
Van Cappellan v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 148 N.W. 104 Minn. 1914
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W. 930 Minn. 1913
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W. 930 Minn. 1913
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Dalby v. Lauritzen, 98 Minn. 75 , ; Humphrey v. Monida & Y. S. Co. 115 Minn. 18 , .
Minnesota & Dakota Cattle Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 122 N.W. 493 Minn. 1909
Minnesota & Dakota Cattle Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 122 N.W. 493 Minn. 1909
If the trial court had admitted the evidence, and if it were the defendant who was complaining, Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , , would have been in point.
McKenzie v. Banks 103 N.W. 497 Minn. 1905
McKenzie v. Banks 103 N.W. 497 Minn. 1905
Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , .
Philips v. Mo 97 N.W. 969 Minn. 1904
Philips v. Mo 97 N.W. 969 Minn. 1904
Co., 64 Minn. 369 , ; Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , .