DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Esser v. Brophey, 3 N.W.2d 3.

44 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Moreover, a constitutional “‘[p]rivilege is personal to those to whom it belongs and is waived unless asserted by them.’” ().
  • LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
  • LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
    Generally, a “[privilege is personal to those to whom it belongs and is waived unless asserted by them.” Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 197
  • Christianson v. Henke 812 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Christianson v. Henke 812 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Such a theory conflicts with the general rule that “the law favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.” Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 196 , (quotation omitted); see also Minneapolis Star & (“This court has often stated that it favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.”); Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 92 , (stating th
  • In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 200
  • C.J. Duffey Paper Co. v. Reger 588 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    See Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 200 , (noting that “it always is permissible” to cross-examine a witness on bias affecting credibility).
  • Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher 392 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1986
  • Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher 392 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1986
    408; Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice: Evidence § 408.01 (1979 & Supp.1986).
  • State v. Larson 369 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Larson 369 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See, Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194
  • In Re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Cases 324 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1982
  • In Re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Cases 324 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1982
    Contra, Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 196-99 , 5 (1942).
  • Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
  • Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
    Our holding is in accord with the principle that parties who settle litigation are favored in the law, Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , and that “each tortfeasor accept responsibility for damages commensurate with its own relative culpability,” Farmington Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Fischer Sand and Aggregate, Inc.
  • Jackson v. Buesgens 186 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1971
  • Jackson v. Buesgens 186 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1971
    hing with each house that they have built, and that she said that they are going to make it right with us; that she said that she felt that Bob did not know how to fix that basement, had made a mistake, and that she was going to see that we could come to some kind of agreement.” Defendants assert that this was part of a settlement negotiation and as such was inadmissible, citing Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 .
  • Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 178 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1970
  • Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 178 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1970
    9 Cf. Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 .
  • Wertheimer v. Byrd 153 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1967
  • Wertheimer v. Byrd 153 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1967
    See, Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 .
  • Hentschel v. Smith 153 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1967
  • Hentschel v. Smith 153 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1967
    Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 ; 3 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Breza v. Thaldorf 149 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1967
  • Breza v. Thaldorf 149 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1967
    7 Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 .
  • Daltex Inc. v. WESTERN OIL & FUEL COMPANY 148 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1967
  • Daltex Inc. v. WESTERN OIL & FUEL COMPANY 148 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1967
    Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 198 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3, 5 ; see, Person v. Bowe, 79 Minn. 238 , .
  • Zaikaner v. Small 98 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1959
  • Zaikaner v. Small 98 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1959
    The remarks of the trial court when the letter was received cannot be assigned as error here, since no exception thereto was taken in the motion for a new trial.” Plaintiff relies in part on Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 , since this case stands for the proposition that evidence of compromise is inherently harmful and that nothing a judge may say or do can void the harm.
  • Dornberg v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 91 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1958
  • Dornberg v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 91 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1958
    It is true that evidence as to a settlement made by an adverse witness with an opposing litigant is inadmissible solely to show an admission of liability, Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 , but this does not mean that it may not be admitted to serve other relevant purposes.
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
    11 Nor is Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 , cited by Gottwald, controlling of the instant case since there the evidence of settlement was received solely for the purpose of showing an admission of liability.
  • Werner v. Miller 78 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1956
  • Werner v. Miller 78 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1956
    Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 .
  • Schiro v. Raymond 54 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1952
  • Schiro v. Raymond 54 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1952
    5 Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 ; Bartels v. Schwake, 153 Minn. 251 , ; see, 4 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1061(c).
  • Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Johnson 44 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1950
  • Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Johnson 44 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1950
    In our opinion, these admissions fall within the rule laid down by this court in Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 198 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3, 5 , where we said: “Where, however, an admission of liability is made, it is admissible, although it is embraced in an offer of compromise.
  • Bosell v. Rannestad 33 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1948
  • Bosell v. Rannestad 33 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1948
    We have held in Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194 , 3 N. W. (2d) 3 , that such evidence was inadmissible for the purpose of showing liability on the part of defendant or hostility of the witness toward the defendant.