Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339.

32 citing documents.

Hanson v. Emanuel 297 N.W. 176 Minn. 1941
Hanson v. Emanuel 297 N.W. 176 Minn. 1941
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 .
State v. Oslund 273 N.W. 76 Minn. 1937
State v. Oslund 273 N.W. 76 Minn. 1937
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 , was an action to recover damages for an indecent assault, and Hein v. Holdridge, 78 Minn. 468 , , was an action to recover damages for seduction.
Segerstrom v. Nelson, Mullen & Nelson, Inc. 269 N.W. 641 Minn. 1936
Segerstrom v. Nelson, Mullen & Nelson, Inc. 269 N.W. 641 Minn. 1936
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 ; Greenfield v. Unique Theatre Co. 146 Minn. 17 , .
Dauer v. Dauer 210 N.W. 878 Minn. 1926
Dauer v. Dauer 210 N.W. 878 Minn. 1926
Tlie rule with the exceptions, somewhat extended in this state, are sufficiently stated in Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 ; Hein v. Holdridge, 78 Minn. 468 , ; Campbell v. Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284 , ; Nickolay v. Orr, 142 Minn. 346 , , 6 A. L. R. 1048; Rennie v. Skellett Co. 151 Minn. 03 , .
Rennie v. Skellett Co. 186 N.W. 130 Minn. 1921
Rennie v. Skellett Co. 186 N.W. 130 Minn. 1921
The cases which so hold are Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 , and Bingham v. Bernard, 36 Minn. 114 , , in which the charge was an indecent assault, and Hein v. Holdridge, 78 Minn. 468 , , in which seduction was charged.
Greenfield v. Unique Theatre Co. 177 N.W. 666 Minn. 1920
Greenfield v. Unique Theatre Co. 177 N.W. 666 Minn. 1920
In Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 , an accurate statement of the maxim was given.
Nickolay v. Orr 172 N.W. 222 Minn. 1919
Nickolay v. Orr 172 N.W. 222 Minn. 1919
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 ; Hein v. Holdridge, 78 Minn. 468 , Campbell v. Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284 , .
Noonan v. Spear 147 N.W. 654 Minn. 1914
Noonan v. Spear 147 N.W. 654 Minn. 1914
Minnesota Valley R. Co. v. Doran, 15 Minn. 186 (240); Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 411 (457); Schuek v Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 ; Cochrane v. Halsey, 25 Minn. 52 .
Campbell v. Aarstad 144 N.W. 956 Minn. 1914
Campbell v. Aarstad 144 N.W. 956 Minn. 1914
The holding, however, was based largely upon the doctrine of stare decisis, following Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 , and civil actions for simple assaults, fraud, and the like, were expressly excluded therefrom.
Eckart v. Kiel 143 N.W. 122 Minn. 1913
Eckart v. Kiel 143 N.W. 122 Minn. 1913
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339, 345 .
Demerce v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 142 N.W. 145 Minn. 1913
Demerce v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 142 N.W. 145 Minn. 1913
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 ; State v. Henderson, 72 Minn. 74 , .
Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Co. 105 N.W. 552 Minn. 1906
Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Co. 105 N.W. 552 Minn. 1906
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 ; Olson v. Tvete, 46 Minn. 225 , ; Hein v. Holdridge, 78 Minn. 468 , ; Hlubek v. Pinske, 84 Minn. 363 , ; Woodworth v. Mills, 61 Wis.
Hein v. Holdridge 81 N.W. 522 Minn. 1900
Hein v. Holdridge 81 N.W. 522 Minn. 1900
Now, in the case of Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 , which was a civil action to recover damages for an indecent assault, the defendant offered evidence of his previous good character; and this court, reversing the trial court, held, without dissent, that such evidence was admissible.
State v. Henderson 74 N.W. 1014 Minn. 1898
State v. Henderson 74 N.W. 1014 Minn. 1898
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 .
Kimball v. Palmerlee 13 N.W. 129 Minn. 1882
Kimball v. Palmerlee 13 N.W. 129 Minn. 1882
Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 , was a case tried by a jury.
Cochrane v. Halsey 25 Minn. 52 Minn. 1878
Cochrane v. Halsey 25 Minn. 52 Minn. 1878
Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 457 ; Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339 .