Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marvin v. Dutcher, 4 N.W. 685.

36 citing documents.

In Re Estate and Trust of Anderson 654 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Estate and Trust of Anderson 654 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Second, Powell argues that In re Dutch-er, 26 Minn. 391 , 4 N.W.
Mitchell v. Morten 54 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1952
Mitchell v. Morten 54 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1952
Co. 127 Minn. 215 , ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , ; Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ; Noesen v. M. St.
Dale v. First National Bank of Rushmore 227 N.W. 501 Minn. 1929
Dale v. First National Bank of Rushmore 227 N.W. 501 Minn. 1929
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82 , ; Ikenberry v. New York L. Ins.
Barrett v. Thielen 167 N.W. 1030 Minn. 1918
Barrett v. Thielen 167 N.W. 1030 Minn. 1918
Marvin v. Duteher, 26 Minn. 391 .
George Gorton Machine Co. v. Grignon 163 N.W. 748 Minn. 1917
George Gorton Machine Co. v. Grignon 163 N.W. 748 Minn. 1917
Geistman’s position in this litigation is sufficiently analogous to that of a party in interest so as to make applicable the rule stated in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , *381 , and Ikenberry v. New York Life Ins.
Ikenberry v. New York Life Insurance 149 N.W. 292 Minn. 1914
Ikenberry v. New York Life Insurance 149 N.W. 292 Minn. 1914
“An admission by a party against his interest, at one time, cannot be rebutted by proof of a statement made in his own favor at another time.” Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , .
Buzalsky v. Buzalsky 122 N.W. 322 Minn. 1909
Buzalsky v. Buzalsky 122 N.W. 322 Minn. 1909
Such was the practice followed in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , .
Reider v. Walz 101 N.W. 601 Minn. 1904
Reider v. Walz 101 N.W. 601 Minn. 1904
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ; In re Pinney’s Will, 27 Minn. 280 , , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , .
Bost v. Supreme Council Royal Arcanum 92 N.W. 337 Minn. 1902
Bost v. Supreme Council Royal Arcanum 92 N.W. 337 Minn. 1902
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , .
Perine v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order United Workmen 50 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1892
Perine v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order United Workmen 50 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1892
§§ 386-391; Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ( 4 N. W. Rep.
Darwin v. Keigher 47 N.W. 314 Minn. 1890
Darwin v. Keigher 47 N.W. 314 Minn. 1890
Referring to this statute, it was said in Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ( 4 N. W. Rep.
Woolsey v. Bohn 42 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1889
Woolsey v. Bohn 42 N.W. 1022 Minn. 1889
153, 166; Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391, 403 , ( 4 N. W. Rep.
Segelbaum v. Segelbaum 39 N.W. 492 Minn. 1888
Segelbaum v. Segelbaum 39 N.W. 492 Minn. 1888
Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 111 , (126;) Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ( 4 N. W. Rep.
State v. Eisele 33 N.W. 785 Minn. 1887
State v. Eisele 33 N.W. 785 Minn. 1887
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ( 4 N. W. Rep.
Harrington v. Samples 30 N.W. 671 Minn. 1886
Harrington v. Samples 30 N.W. 671 Minn. 1886
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ( 4 N. W. Rep.
Niggeler v. Maurin 24 N.W. 369 Minn. 1885
Niggeler v. Maurin 24 N.W. 369 Minn. 1885
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 .
Ashton v. Thompson 9 N.W. 876 Minn. 1881
Ashton v. Thompson 9 N.W. 876 Minn. 1881
Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 .
In re the Probate of the Will of Pinney 6 N.W. 791 Minn. 1880
In re the Probate of the Will of Pinney 6 N.W. 791 Minn. 1880
It was decided in Marvin v. Butcher, 26 Minn. 391 , that a verdict upon an issue in probate proceedings, on appeal to the district court, is as binding as in any action, and is subject to the same rules as to setting it aside for insufficiency of evidence.