Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528.

25 citing documents.

Smith v. Bailen 258 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1977
Smith v. Bailen 258 N.W.2d 118 Minn. 1977
Nelson v. Nelson, 298 Minn. 438 , State v. Sax, 231 Minn. 1 , State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 (1877).
Johnson v. Johnson 8 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1943
Johnson v. Johnson 8 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1943
In State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528, 533 , we said of our statute requiring a license for a marriage: “Although containing provisions requiring a license in certain cases, directing how and by whom a marriage may be celebrated, and prescribing other regulations in reference thereto, the statute contains no express clause of nullity, making void a marria
State v. Jeffrey 247 N.W. 692 Minn. 1933
State v. Jeffrey 247 N.W. 692 Minn. 1933
In State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528, 537 , it was held that the oath administered to petit jurors in a bastardy proceeding was the form provided in our statute for use in “the trial of any civil action or proceeding” and not that oath provided for the trial of criminal cases.
In Re Estate of Lust 243 N.W. 443 Minn. 1932
In Re Estate of Lust 243 N.W. 443 Minn. 1932
*Page 410 Our own cases of State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 ; Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , 69 N.W.
In Re Estate of Noser 231 N.W. 199 Minn. 1930
In Re Estate of Noser 231 N.W. 199 Minn. 1930
See also State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 .
Skaggs v. State 207 P. 877 Ariz. 1922
State v. Longwell 160 N.W. 189 Minn. 1916
State v. Longwell 160 N.W. 189 Minn. 1916
In State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 , it was held that the oath to be administered to the jury is that prescribed by statute for civil actions.
Thoreson v. Susens 148 N.W. 891 Minn. 1914
Thoreson v. Susens 148 N.W. 891 Minn. 1914
State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528; In re Terry’s Estate, 58 Minn. 268 , .
Le Suer v. Le Suer 142 N.W. 593 Minn. 1913
Le Suer v. Le Suer 142 N.W. 593 Minn. 1913
419 ; In re Terry’s Estate, 58 Minn. 268 , ; Heminway v. Miller, 87 Minn. 123 , ; State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 .
Hulett v. Carey 69 N.W. 31 Minn. 1896
Hulett v. Carey 69 N.W. 31 Minn. 1896
Counsel for appellants contend, however, that the law is otherwise in this state; citing State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 , in which this court used the following language: “Consent, freely given, is the essence of the contract.
State v. Klitzke 49 N.W. 54 Minn. 1891
State v. Klitzke 49 N.W. 54 Minn. 1891
See State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 ; State v. Snure, 29 Minn. 132 , ( 12 N. W. Rep.
Fox v. Burke 17 N.W. 861 Minn. 1883
Fox v. Burke 17 N.W. 861 Minn. 1883
Caujolle v. Ferrie, supra, and cases cited; State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 .
State v. Snure 12 N.W. 347 Minn. 1882
State v. Snure 12 N.W. 347 Minn. 1882
So, in State v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528 , it was beld that the oath- prescribed for the jury in civil cases is the proper one in these proceedings.