Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Erickson v. Erickson Company, 2 N.W.2d 824.

25 citing documents.

Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French 460 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1990
Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
The dissent states that "failure of a witness to describe all material facts is grounds for impeachment” and cites Erickson v. Erickson & Co., 212 Minn. 119, 125
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French 460 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1990
See Erickson v. Erickson & Co., 212 Minn. 119, 125
Zellmer v. Univac 187 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1971
Zellmer v. Univac 187 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1971
Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 .
Sandmeyer v. City of Bemidji 161 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1968
Sandmeyer v. City of Bemidji 161 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1968
This finding, which must be upheld unless contrary to the evidence (Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. [2d] 824), is adequately supported by the record.
Jonas v. Lillyblad 137 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1965
Jonas v. Lillyblad 137 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1965
(3 ed.) § 10426(13); Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 .
Carroll v. Pratt 76 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1956
Carroll v. Pratt 76 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1956
2 Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 ; O’Connell v. Ward, 130 Minn. 443 , ; State v. Callahan, 100 Minn. 63 , ; see, McCormick, Evidence, § 34; 58 Am.
Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
This court in discussing when a witness may be impeached said in Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119, 125 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 , 827: “A witness may be impeached by contradicting his testimony.
Rockwood v. Pierce 51 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1952
Rockwood v. Pierce 51 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1952
Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 .
Kaplan v. Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority 42 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1950
Kaplan v. Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority 42 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1950
Cf. Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 .
Downing v. Maag 10 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1943
Downing v. Maag 10 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1943
In Erickson v. Erickson Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 125 , , the testimony rejected by the industrial commission was impeached by the witness's prior statements and by inconsistency in his testimony.
Kiley v. Sward-Kemp Drug Co. 9 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1943
O'Neill v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 7 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1942
O'Neill v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 7 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1942
Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 , is not to the contrary, since in that case there was a real inconsistency between the witness’ testimony and his prior statement because of the fact that he testimonially stated, in order to establish a liability in his favor, a vital and important fact which he had omitted from his prior written
Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 6 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1942
Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 6 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1942
Erickson v. Erickson & Co. 212 Minn. 119 , 2 N. W. (2d) 824 .