9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steen v. First Nat. Bankgreen2 sentences2006In Swanson we quoted with approval the following ruling from Steen v. First Nat’l Bank, 298 F. 36, 41 (8th Cir.1924): “The owner of the privilege of preventing the disclosure of confidential communications cannot, after testifying to or about them, or to or about any substantial part of them, without claiming his privilege, or objecting to testify on the ground of his privilege, invoke the privilege to prevent other parties to the communications from testifying to them. 2006In Swanson we quoted with approval the following ruling from Steen v. First Nat'l Bank, 298 F. 36, 41 (8th Cir.1924): "The owner of the privilege of preventing the disclosure of confidential communications cannot, after testifying to or about them, or to or about any substantial part of them, without claiming his privilege, or objecting to testify on the ground of his privilege, invoke the privilege to prevent other parties to the communications from testifying to them. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Guminga
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 345-46'. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 670 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences1981Although the identification procedures conducted shortly after the defendants were arrested left something to be desired, we hold that there was no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis- identification” — Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 1981Although the identification procedures conducted shortly after the defendants were arrested left something to be desired, we hold that there was no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis- identification” — Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Manson v. Brathwaite
green
2 sentences1981Although the identification procedures conducted shortly after the defendants were arrested left something to be desired, we hold that there was no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis- identification” — Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 1981Although the identification procedures conducted shortly after the defendants were arrested left something to be desired, we hold that there was no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis- identification” — Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co.
green
2 sentences1950If a judgment in favor of the plaintiff when satisfied by defendant will protect him from future annoyance or loss, and where, as against the party suing, defendant can urge any defenses he could make against the real owner of the claim, then there is an end of defendant’s concern, for, so far as he is interested, the action is being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. * * * A judgment for plaintiff will be a bar to other suits to enforce defendant’s alleged legal liability for the death of plaintiff’s intestate and aside from that defendant is not concerned.” In Hayday v. Ha 1950If a judgment in favor of the plaintiff when satisfied by defendant will protect him from future annoyance or loss, and where, as against the party suing, defendant can urge any defenses he could make against the real owner of the claim, then there is an end of defendant’s concern, for, so far as he is interested, the action is being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. * * * A judgment for plaintiff will be a bar to other suits to enforce defendant’s alleged legal liability for the death of plaintiff’s intestate and aside from that defendant is not concerned.” In Hayday v. Ha | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Brazil v. County of Sibley
green
2 sentences1926This objection was held not well taken; but it was suggested that the review of the courts was of the limited character permitted in the review of administrative questions, as illustrated in Brazil v. Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , 166 N.W. 1077 . 1926This objection was held not well taken; but it was suggested that the review of the courts was of the limited character permitted in the review of administrative questions, as illustrated in Brazil v. Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , 166 N.W. 1077 . | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Elmquist v. Markoe
green
2 sentences1925Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 305 , 47 N. W. 970 ; Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651 , 40 Pac. 8 . 1925Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 305 , 47 N. W. 970 ; Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651 , 40 Pac. 8 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Giselman v. Starr
green
2 sentences1925Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 305 , 47 N. W. 970 ; Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651 , 40 Pac. 8 . 1925Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 305 , 47 N. W. 970 ; Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651 , 40 Pac. 8 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.