Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Meyer v. Travelers Insurance, 153 N.W. 523.

26 citing documents.

Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
*177 Thus, “[t]ime is an important but not definitely controlling consideration.” Meyer v. Travelers Insurance Co., 130 Minn. 242, 244 , 153 N.W.
In Re Welfare of Child Named Chuesberg 233 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1975
In Re Welfare of Child Named Chuesberg 233 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1975
State v. Armstrong 162 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1968
State v. Armstrong 162 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1968
Beebe v. Kleidon 65 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1954
Beebe v. Kleidon 65 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1954
Co. 130 Minn. 242, 244 , , 524: “The utterances to which the phrase res gestae is applied, in cases like the one before us, are hearsay utterances, and they are received as one of the several recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.
State v. Quinnild 42 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1950
State v. Quinnild 42 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1950
Co. 130 Minn. 242 , ; Roach v. Great Northern Ry.
State v. Gorman 40 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1949
State v. Gorman 40 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1949
Co. 130 Minn. 242, 244 , , 524: “An utterance made in response to a question may be less indicative of spontaneity than an uninvited one.” State v. Sucik, 217 Minn. 556 , 14 N. W. (2d) 857 .
State v. Sucik 14 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1944
State v. Sucik 14 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1944
Co. 130 Minn. 242, 244 , , this court said concerning such statements: “* * * The spontaneity accredits them.
Scott v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 282 N.W. 467 Minn. 1938
Scott v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 282 N.W. 467 Minn. 1938
Co. 130, Minn. 242, ; Garbush v. New York L. Ins.
Johnston v. W. S. Nott Co. 236 N.W. 466 Minn. 1931
Johnston v. W. S. Nott Co. 236 N.W. 466 Minn. 1931
Co. 130 Minn. 242 , , and again in Clark v. Davis, 153 Minn. 143 , .
State v. Humphrey 217 N.W. 373 Minn. 1928
State v. Humphrey 217 N.W. 373 Minn. 1928
Co. 130 Minn. 242 , ; Roach v. G. N. Ry.
Clark v. Davis 190 N.W. 45 Minn. 1922
Clark v. Davis 190 N.W. 45 Minn. 1922
Co. 130 Minn. 242 , ; Roach v. Great Northern Ry.
Perkins v. Great Northern Railway Co. 188 N.W. 564 Minn. 1922
Perkins v. Great Northern Railway Co. 188 N.W. 564 Minn. 1922
Co. 130 Minn. 242 , ; Roach v. Great Northern Ry.
Roach v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 232 Minn. 1916
Roach v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 232 Minn. 1916
Co. 130 Minn. 242 , , and in Lambrecht v. Schreyer, 129 Minn. 271 , , L.R.A.