No member or officer of, or attorney employed by, the legislature shall be compelled to attend as a witness in a court of this state during a session of the legislature, or while attending a meeting of a legislative committee or commission when the legislature is not in session unless the court in which the action is pending orders it, upon sufficient showing and with the consent of the presiding officer of the body of which the witness is an employee or the consent of the body of which the witness is a member. No cause or proceeding, civil or criminal, in court or before a commission or an officer or referee of a court or commission or a motion or hearing on the cause or proceeding, in which a member or officer of, or an attorney employed by, the legislature is a party, attorney, or witness shall be tried or heard during a session of the legislature or while the member, officer, or attorney is attending a meeting of a legislative committee or commission when the legislature is not in session. The matter shall be continued until the legislature or the committee or commission meeting has adjourned.
The member, officer, or attorney may, with the consent of the body of the legislature of which the person is a member, officer, or employee, waive this privilege. The cause or proceeding, motion, or hearing may then be tried or heard at a time that will not conflict with legislative duties.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, 732 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “The legislators argue that they were unable to participate because they are precluded during the legislative session from becoming parties to a legal proceeding by the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 3.16 (2006). We reject the legislators’ argument that they are precluded from…”
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 810, 109 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 1961).
· cites it 7× “It is contended on behalf of the school board that its present proceedings for the proposed termination of relator’s contract are not proceedings “in court,” nor is a board a “court” for purposes of § 3.16. The question here is whether the necessity of complying with…”
Pentair, Inc. v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 917 (D. Minnesota 2008).
· cites it 23× “The Agreement sets forth certain exceptions to this general provision, however, including an exception for breaches of § 3.16 — the warranty on which Count II (but not Count I) is based.”
Lexis-Nexis v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950 (D. Minnesota 1999).
“”); Goreliek et ah, § 3.16, at 117 (stating that the court must fashion “the least onerous sanction corresponding to .”
Pentair, Inc. v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 6× “” Agreement § 3.16(a). WEC warranted that, with certain exceptions not relevant here, “all payments due fram [each] Employee Plan/Agreement .”
In Re the Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson, 359 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “In consideration of our holding that a hearing was necessary to properly execute the provisions of the court’s order of June 16, we do not address wife’s attorney’s argument that under Minn.Stat. § 3.16 (1982), it was error for the court to issue its order during a legislative…”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.16(a) — 2 cases
Pentair, Inc. v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 917 (D. Minnesota 2008).
“The Agreement sets forth certain exceptions to this general provision, however, including an exception for breaches of § 3.16 — the warranty on which Count II (but not Count I) is based.”
Pentair, Inc. v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (D. Minnesota 2009).
“” Agreement § 3.16(a). WEC warranted that, with certain exceptions not relevant here, “all payments due fram [each] Employee Plan/Agreement .”
— Minn. Stat. § 3.16(f) — 2 cases
Pentair, Inc. v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 917 (D. Minnesota 2008).
“The Agreement sets forth certain exceptions to this general provision, however, including an exception for breaches of § 3.16 — the warranty on which Count II (but not Count I) is based.”
Pentair, Inc. v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (D. Minnesota 2009).
“” Agreement § 3.16(a). WEC warranted that, with certain exceptions not relevant here, “all payments due fram [each] Employee Plan/Agreement .”
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.