Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Centergreen2 sentences2024See Dennie, 387 N.W.2d at 406 ; Minn. R. 2003See Dennie, 387 N.W.2d at 406 . “[P]arties claiming the [attorney-client] privilege will have to show its application to particular narrative statements in billing records.” Cypress Media, 997 P.2d at 698 . | 2 | 2 |
Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Parkgreen2 sentences2003But this accessibility may be abrogated by the attorney-client privilege, which protects those parts of the billing records in which RKMC communicated legal advice that would not have been disclosed but for the existence of the privilege, see Cypress Media, 997 P.2d at 692 , *847 and by the work-product doctrine, which protects those parts of the billing records in which RKMC communicated opinions, conclusions, legal theories, or mental impressions prepared in anticipation of litigation. 2003See Dennie, 387 N.W.2d at 406 . “[P]arties claiming the [attorney-client] privilege will have to show its application to particular narrative statements in billing records.” Cypress Media, 997 P.2d at 698 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Richard Roe, Inc., and John Doe, Inc. United States of America v. Richard Roe, Inc., Richard Roe, John Doe, Inc., and John Doegreen2 sentences2000See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 144 F.3d 653, 659-60 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating attorney-client privilege does not apply where client consults counsel to further crime or fraud and noting crime-fraud exception “applies to both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine”); cf. In re Richard Roe, Inc., 68 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1995) (stating crime-fraud exception applies where communication with counsel or attorney work product was intended to assist or conceal criminal activity). 2000See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 144 F.3d 653, 659-60 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating attorney-client privilege does not apply where client consults counsel to further crime or fraud and noting crime-fraud exception “applies to both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine”); cf. In re Richard Roe, Inc., 68 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1995) (stating crime-fraud exception applies where communication with counsel or attorney work product was intended to assist or conceal criminal activity). | 1 | 1 |
Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co.green1 sentence2000For purposes of this discussion, we assume, without deciding, that this challenge comes under “the procedural due process rubric.” Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co., 478 N.W.2d 200, 203 (Minn.App.1991) (noting “challenges of statutory privileges have also been analyzed under the procedural due process rubric”); see United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 , 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2630 , 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989) (noting possible due process implications in the routine use of in camera proceedings to decide applicability of crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Zolingreen2 sentences2000For purposes of this discussion, we assume, without deciding, that this challenge comes under “the procedural due process rubric.” Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co., 478 N.W.2d 200, 203 (Minn.App.1991) (noting “challenges of statutory privileges have also been analyzed under the procedural due process rubric”); see United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 , 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2630 , 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989) (noting possible due process implications in the routine use of in camera proceedings to decide applicability of crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege). 2000For purposes of this discussion, we assume, without deciding, that this challenge comes under “the procedural due process rubric.” Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co., 478 N.W.2d 200, 203 (Minn.App.1991) (noting “challenges of statutory privileges have also been analyzed under the procedural due process rubric”); see United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 , 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2630 , 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989) (noting possible due process implications in the routine use of in camera proceedings to decide applicability of crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoenas, Jane Roe and John Doe. Intervenor v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2000See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 144 F.3d 653, 659-60 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating attorney-client privilege does not apply where client consults counsel to further crime or fraud and noting crime-fraud exception “applies to both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine”); cf. In re Richard Roe, Inc., 68 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1995) (stating crime-fraud exception applies where communication with counsel or attorney work product was intended to assist or conceal criminal activity). 2000See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 144 F.3d 653, 659-60 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating attorney-client privilege does not apply where client consults counsel to further crime or fraud and noting crime-fraud exception “applies to both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine”); cf. In re Richard Roe, Inc., 68 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1995) (stating crime-fraud exception applies where communication with counsel or attorney work product was intended to assist or conceal criminal activity). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Galvangreen1 sentence1996See State v. Galvan, 374 N.W.2d 269, 270 (Minn.1985) (prosecutor’s notes of conversations with witness on state's witness list are not work product and are discoverable under Minn. R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences1979The work product doctrine is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege and is especially important in criminal cases where: “The interests of society and the accused in obtaining a fair and accurate resolution of the question of guilt or innocence demand that adequate safeguards assure the thorough preparation and presentation of each side of the case.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 *404 S.Ct. 2160, 2170, 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 153 (1975). 1979The work product doctrine is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege and is especially important in criminal cases where: “The interests of society and the accused in obtaining a fair and accurate resolution of the question of guilt or innocence demand that adequate safeguards assure the thorough preparation and presentation of each side of the case.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 *404 S.Ct. 2160, 2170, 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 153 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Struckmeyer v. Lamb
neutral
2 sentences1979The attorney-client privilege, which was codified in Minnesota in 1851, Minn.St. 595.-02(2), 3 embodies, as we recognized in Struckmeyer v. Lamb, 75 Minn. 366 , 77 N.W. 987 (1899), the common-law privilege which has been universally accepted since the 19th Century as indispensable to an attorney’s professional relationship with his client. 1979The attorney-client privilege, which was codified in Minnesota in 1851, Minn.St. 595.-02(2), 3 embodies, as we recognized in Struckmeyer v. Lamb, 75 Minn. 366 , 77 N.W. 987 (1899), the common-law privilege which has been universally accepted since the 19th Century as indispensable to an attorney’s professional relationship with his client. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.