Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Selover v. Bryant, 56 N.W. 58.

46 citing documents.

Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , Fjell-man v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457 , State v. Dahlgren, 259 Minn. 307 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , State v. Johnson, 289 Minn. 346
State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
See, Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418; 20 Dunnell, Dig.
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
Co. 170 Minn. 482 , ; Fjellman v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457 , 7 N. W. (2d) 521 ; Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418; Young v. United States (5 Cir.) 97 F. (2d) 200, 117 A. L. R. 316; 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 904(3).
Strand v. Village of Watson 72 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1955
Strand v. Village of Watson 72 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1955
7 Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; Fjellman v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457 , 7 N. W. (2d) 521 ; Witort v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
While the facts in the case of Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , are not similar to the facts here, the language used in the opinion is appropriate.
State v. Saponen 205 Minn. 358 Minn. 1939
State v. Saporen 285 N.W. 898 Minn. 1939
State v. Saponen 205 Minn. 358 Minn. 1939
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 A. S. R. 349, discarded the former doctrine that the party calling a witness so far vouches for his credibility as to bar his impeachment.
State v. Saporen 285 N.W. 898 Minn. 1939
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , 56 N.W.
Daly v. Donovan 273 N.W. 814 Minn. 1937
Daly v. Donovan 273 N.W. 814 Minn. 1937
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 A. S. R. 349; Stevens v. Wisconsin Farm Land Co. 124 Minn. 421 , .
Kouri v. Olson-Keogh Produce Co. 253 N.W. 98 Minn. 1934
Kouri v. Olson-Keogh Produce Co. 253 N.W. 98 Minn. 1934
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 A. S. R. 349.
Lundgren v. Union Indemnity Co. 213 N.W. 553 Minn. 1927
Lundgren v. Union Indemnity Co. 213 N.W. 553 Minn. 1927
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434, 438 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
Witort v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 212 N.W. 944 Minn. 1927
Witort v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 212 N.W. 944 Minn. 1927
State v. Johnson, 12 Minn. 378 (476); Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
State v. Fruen 202 N.W. 733 Minn. 1925
State v. Fruen 202 N.W. 733 Minn. 1925
Evidently defendants believed that if he were com *354 pelled to testify he would deny the statements made in their affidavits, for in their brief they invoke the rule announced in Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
State v. Jensen 186 N.W. 581 Minn. 1922
State v. Jensen 186 N.W. 581 Minn. 1922
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
State v. Shea 182 N.W. 445 Minn. 1921
State v. Shea 182 N.W. 445 Minn. 1921
241 ; State v. Tall, 43 Minn. 273 , ; Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L.R.A.
Muenkel v. Muenkel 173 N.W. 184 Minn. 1919
Muenkel v. Muenkel 173 N.W. 184 Minn. 1919
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
State v. Wassing 169 N.W. 485 Minn. 1918
State v. Wassing 169 N.W. 485 Minn. 1918
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 -438, , 21 L.R.A.
Schmidt v. Thompson 167 N.W. 543 Minn. 1918
Schmidt v. Thompson 167 N.W. 543 Minn. 1918
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L.R.A.
Stevens v. Wisconsin Farm Land Co. 145 N.W. 173 Minn. 1914
Stevens v. Wisconsin Farm Land Co. 145 N.W. 173 Minn. 1914
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L.R.A.
Millman v. Drake & Stratton Co. 137 N.W. 300 Minn. 1912
Millman v. Drake & Stratton Co. 137 N.W. 300 Minn. 1912
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L.R.A.
State v. Sederstrom 109 N.W. 113 Minn. 1906
State v. Sederstrom 109 N.W. 113 Minn. 1906
The case comes within the rule that “a party who has called a witness in his own behalf and who is surprised by his adverse testimony may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed to show, after proper preliminary proof, that he had previously made statements contrary to his testimony.” Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
Lindquist v. Dickson 107 N.W. 958 Minn. 1906
Lindquist v. Dickson 107 N.W. 958 Minn. 1906
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418, 40 Am.
Cook v. Kittson 71 N.W. 670 Minn. 1897
Cook v. Kittson 71 N.W. 670 Minn. 1897
r a new trial.” As authority in support of what has .been said in respect to the second, third, fourth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error, see City v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 125 (154); Wilson v. Minnesota, 36 Minn. 112 , ; Stevens v. City, 42 Minn. 136 , ; American v. Piatt, 51 Minn. 568 , ; Dallemand v. Swensen, 54 Minn. 32 , ; Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , ; Johnson v. Johnson, 57 Minn. 100 , ; Yellow v. Wiger, 59 Minn. 384 , ; Dodge v. McMahan, 61 Minn. 175 , ; Minneapolis v. Firemen, 62 Mi
First National Bank v. Holan 65 N.W. 952 Minn. 1896
First National Bank v. Holan 65 N.W. 952 Minn. 1896
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , .