Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Martin v. Wolfson, 16 N.W.2d 884.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4 The 4 The Minnesota Supreme Court has long recognized that “[e]xcept as limited by public policy, a person may waive any legal right, constitutional or statutory.”
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
We have held that “failure to swear a witness in an ordinary civil trial, or even in a criminal trial, may be waived by failure to object or by express consent.” Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557, 568
Boedingheimer v. Lake Country Transportation 485 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1992
Boedingheimer v. Lake Country Transportation 485 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1992
State v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 310 Minn. 528, 530-31 , -98 (1976); Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557, 564-66 , -89 (1944); Minnesota Administrative Procedure 419 (Beck, Bakken & Muck eds.
State, by Spannaus v. Lloyd A. Fry Roof. Co. 246 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1976
State, by Spannaus v. Lloyd A. Fry Roof. Co. 246 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1976
See, Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Ludwig v. City of Bemidji 212 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1973
State Ex Rel. Ludwig v. City of Bemidji 212 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1973
He cites Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557, 568 , where we said: “* * * The right to present evidence, to have witnesses sworn, and to have them subjected to direct and cross-examination in accordance with recognized judicial procedure was the right of any interested person present at the hearing.
Haaland v. Pomush 117 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1962
Haaland v. Pomush 117 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1962
To the extent the Gottshall case requires the advisory board to afford interested persons the right of counsel at all their hearings we do not choose to follow it, preferring to adhere to the rule we announced in Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557, 566 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 , 889: “* * * The advisory board held no public hearings of any kind, *512 nor did the statute contemplate that it should.
Slezak v. Ousdigian 110 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1961
Slezak v. Ousdigian 110 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1961
No. 1, 248 Minn. 212 , 79 N. W. (2d) 428 ; Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 ; 42 Am.
Saylor v. Sass 104 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1960
Saylor v. Sass 104 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1960
See, Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 ; 20 Dunnell, Dig.
State Ex Rel. Rajala v. Rigg 101 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1960
State Ex Rel. Rajala v. Rigg 101 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1960
Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 .
State Ex Rel. Shelby v. Rigg 96 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1959
State Ex Rel. Shelby v. Rigg 96 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1959
Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 .
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rigg 96 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1959
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rigg 96 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1959
2 This court has said in State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488, 495 , , 99 A. L. R. 147, that “Waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right,” and in Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557, 569 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884, 890 , that “Except as limited by public policy, a person may waive any legal right, constitutional or statutory.” We think the particular facts and circumstances in the case at bar, including the background, experience, and conduct of relator, which appear to be quite fully set forth in the
Engwall v. County of Ramsey 77 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1956
Engwall v. County of Ramsey 77 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1956
Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 .
Thomas v. Ramberg 73 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1955
Thomas v. Ramberg 60 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1953
Thomas v. Ramberg 60 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1953
Plaintiff has relied upon Rockne v. Olson, 191 Minn. 310 , , and Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 .
State v. Gensmer 51 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1951
State v. Gensmer 51 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1951
Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N. W. (2d) 884 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2282, p. 516, et seq.; State v. Nolan, 231 Minn. 522 , 44 N. W. (2d) 66 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by