Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 595.04 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1987 c 346 s 18]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1942–1985 · leading case: Ehmke v. Hill, 51 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 1952).
Ehmke v. Hill, 51 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 1952). “Over appellants’ specific objection that she was incompetent under § 595.04 to give testimony concerning any conversation with *65 decedent, Margrate Ehmke, one of the parties defendant to the action and a sister of decedent, who as one of his heirs at law would inherit a share…”
Leuba v. Bailey, 88 N.W.2d 73 (Minn. 1957). “The court sustained this objection holding that it was inadmissible under § 595.04, commonly referred to as the “Dead Man’s Statute,” which provides that: “It shall not be competent for any party to an action, or any person interested in the event thereof, to give evidence * * *…”
Chard v. Darlington, 68 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 1955). “392 applicable, and, if so, is good faith on the part of defendants a defense to the action for double liability ? (3) Was the testimony of Ellen Darlington admissible under § 595.04? (4) Were the envelopes in which the bonds allegedly were placed admissible in evidence? *494…”
Matter of Est. of Arend, 373 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “The Dead Man’s Statute, Minn. Stat. § 595.04 , is superseded by Minnesota Rules of Evidence 616 which permits testimony from any witness regardless of whether that witness is a party or has an interest in the litigation.”
Mitchell v. Morten, 54 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. 1952). “Appellant alternatively contends that, even if § 595.04 were applicable, respondent, by failing to make timely objections and by his detailed and extensive cross-examination of Einar Arnt, waived the prohibition of the statute, and made all his testimony concerning conversations…”
Chris/Rob Realty v. Chrysler Realty Corp., 260 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 1977). “1976, § 595.04. 1 In support of respondents’ position, Robins testified as to the negotiating session that occurred on March 12,1969, at which a representative of Chrysler Motors Corporation, who died 4½ years later, was present.”
Eklund v. Eklund, 47 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1951). “04 in part provides: “It shall not be competent for any party to an action, or any person interested in the event thereof, to give evidence therein of or concerning any conversation with, or admission of, a deceased or insane party or person relative to any matter at issue…”
Pomerenke v. Farmers Life Ins. Co., 36 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 1949). “431, 433 , in construing the statute (§ 595.04) prohibiting parties or persons interested in the event of an action from testifying to conversations with deceased persons, we pointed out that this court in Kells v.”
Pearson v. Bertelson, 69 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1955). “04) permit a surviving *227 partner to testify to any part of a conversation between him, the deceased party defendant, and the plaintiff? (3) Is a surviving partner, who is in default in an action on a partnership obligation, an interested party within the meaning of the dead…”
Brennan v. Carroll, 111 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. 1961). “(2d) 405, 412 , wherein this court said: "Our statute (§ 595.04) does not forbid testimony of acts of the decedent.”
Minnesota Amusement Co., a Corp. v. John Fred Larkin, 299 F.2d 142 (8th Cir. 1962). “, Minn.Stat. Ann. § 595.04. 3 . At the time of trial Mr.”
Cashman v. Mason, 72 F. Supp. 487 (D. Minnesota 1947). “While the testimony is of doubtful probative value in establishing a present gift, in that it is obvious that plaintiff would have to have, so to speak, an interest in the bank account if she was to be permitted to draw checks thereon, the Court is convinced that, under Section…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.