Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co., 127 N.W. 561.

27 citing documents.

State v. Evans 352 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Evans 352 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
It is well established in Minnesota that counsel has the “right to elicit sufficient information to enable him to determine the advisability of interposing a peremptory challenge.” Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co., 112 Minn. 158, 163 , 127 N.W.
Carroll v. Pratt 76 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1956
Carroll v. Pratt 76 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1956
3 Johnson v. Young, 127 Minn. 462 , ; Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , ; McDonald v. Bayha, 93 Minn. 139 , ; Horton v. Chadbourn, 31 Minn. 322 , ; see, McCormick, Evidence, § 37; 58 Am.
Hierl v. McClure 56 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1953
Hierl v. McClure 56 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1953
Litman v. Peper, 214 Minn. 127 , 7 N. W. (2d) 334 ; Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , ; McManus v. Nichols-Chisholm Lbr.
Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc. 48 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1951
Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc. 48 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1951
R. Co. 116 Minn. 256 , ; Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , .
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Cooper v. Hoeglund 22 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1946
Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158, 127 , N. W. 561; see, State v. Walso, 196 Minn. 525 , ; Amor v. Stoeckele, 76 Minn. 180 , .
Johnson v. Farrell 298 N.W. 256 Minn. 1941
Johnson v. Farrell 298 N.W. 256 Minn. 1941
But Erickson was a party, and “contradictory statements by a party can be shown without his attention having first been called to them.” Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158, 165 , ; Howard *354 v. Illinois Cent.
Storhaugen v. Motor Truck Service Co. 213 N.W. 372 Minn. 1927
Storhaugen v. Motor Truck Service Co. 213 N.W. 372 Minn. 1927
Co. 102 Minn. 325 , ; Gracz v. Anderson, 104 Minn. 476 , ; Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , ; N. W. Fuel Co. v. M. St.
Carlson v. Bernier 211 N.W. 683 Minn. 1927
Carlson v. Bernier 211 N.W. 683 Minn. 1927
Co. 102 Minn. 325 , ; Heydman v. Red Wing B. Co. 112 Minn. 158 , ; Uggen v. Bazille & Partridge, 127 Minn. 364 , Archer v. Skahen, 137 Minn. 432 , .
State v. Mulroy 189 N.W. 441 Minn. 1922
State v. Jensen 186 N.W. 581 Minn. 1922
State v. Jensen 186 N.W. 581 Minn. 1922
The necessity of thus laying a foundation was referred to in State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 125 (132) and Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , , but an unduly technical application of the rule was disapproved in Johnson v. Young, 127 Minn. 462 , .
Kapsotes v. Great Northern Railway Co. 157 N.W. 713 Minn. 1916
Kapsotes v. Great Northern Railway Co. 157 N.W. 713 Minn. 1916
See Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , ; Fieck v. Chicago Great Western R. Co. 116 Minn. 47 , ; Burmister v. P. C. Giguere & Son, 130 Minn. 28 , .
Marshall v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 155 N.W. 208 Minn. 1915
Marshall v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 155 N.W. 208 Minn. 1915
He cites and relies upon such cases as Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , 127 N. W. *397 561 ; Bell v. Northern Pacific Ry.
Titus v. Crookston Lumber Co. 153 N.W. 599 Minn. 1915
Titus v. Crookston Lumber Co. 153 N.W. 599 Minn. 1915
Lyons v. Dee, 88 Minn. 490 , ; Johnson v. MacLeod, 111 Minn. 479 , ; Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , .
Dobreff v. St. Paul Gaslight Co. 149 N.W. 465 Minn. 1914
Dobreff v. St. Paul Gaslight Co. 149 N.W. 465 Minn. 1914
In some of these the cave-in occurred by reason of conditions unknown to the plaintiff — or because of blasting of which he had not been advised (Kohout v. Newman, 96 Minn. 61 , ); or because of cracks in the surface of which he did not know (Hill v. Winston, 73 Minn. 80 , ); or because, by reason of darkness, he could not see (Heydman v. Red Wing Brick Co. 112 Minn. 158 , ; Arnold v. Dauchy, 115 Minn. 28 , ); or because of other conditions of which he had no knowledge (Lund v. E. S. Wood- *290