Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Snyker v. Snyker, 72 N.W.2d 357.

32 citing documents.

State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
Snyker v. Snyker , 245 Minn. 405 , , 359 (1955) ; see Larson v. Montpetit , 275 Minn. 394 , , 586 (1966) ("[E]videntiary privileges constitute barriers to the ascertainment of truth and are therefore to be disfavored and narrowly limited to their purposes ....").
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The privilege is “solely for the protection of the patient and is designed to promote health and not truth.” Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 407
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
Despite the fact that the theory behind the physician-patient privilege statute is highly speculative, see Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 408 , the policies of Schmerber and Oevering are simply inappo-site to the question of medical privilege.
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“The theory of all physician-patient privilege statutes is that patient’s fear of revelation in court of information given to his doctor deter and discourage him from freely disclosing his symptoms to the detriment of his health.” Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 408
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
This discretion allows the court to safeguard eviden-tiary privileges, while not allowing them to become “vehicles for the suppression of evidence which is not privileged.” Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 407 , (addressing earlier version of rules).
Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 398 , see Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , (purpose of privilege is to promote health).
Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405
State v. Staat 192 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1971
State v. Staat 192 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1971
uired in attending the patient in a professional capacity and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity.” The theory underlying this privilege is that a patient’s fear of an unwarranted, embarrassing, and detrimental disclosure in court of information given to his doctor would deter the patient “from freely disclosing his symptoms to the detriment of his health.” Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 408 , State v. Fontana, 277 Minn. 286
Christenson v. Christenson 162 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1968
Christenson v. Christenson 162 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1968
We do not decide, however, whether such party may thereafter waive his privilege at the trial and introduce such testimony, nor do we suggest that pretrial discovery is limited to what is admissible in evidence.” *513 In Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 407 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357, 358 , in which the defendant in an action for divorce sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial court from requiring him to permit discovery of, and produce for inspection, his earnings records, this court said:
State v. Fontana 152 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1967
State v. Fontana 152 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1967
Nelson v. Ackermann, 249 Minn. 582 , 83 N. W. (2d) 500 ; Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357 .
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller 135 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1965
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller 135 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1965
In Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405, 407 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357, 359 , we said: “Where records and documents, which are the object of discovery and inspection procedures, contain both privileged and nonprivileged evidence, the trial court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may permit their inspection subject to express conditions and requirements whic
State v. Peterson 123 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1963
State v. Peterson 123 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1963
Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 219 Minn. 461 , 18 N. W. (2d) 233 , 158 A. L. R. 215; Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357 .
Nelson v. Ackermann 83 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1957
Nelson v. Ackermann 83 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1957
6 Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357 .
In Re Estate of Koenig 247 Minn. 580 Minn. 1956
Parker v. Barrett 78 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1956
In Re Estate of Koenig 247 Minn. 580 Minn. 1956
[4] See, 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2380 a; Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , 72 N.W.
Parker v. Barrett 78 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1956
See, 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2380a; Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357 .
Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
Baskerville v. Baskerville 75 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1956
21 In Snyker v. Snyker, 245 Minn. 405 , 72 N. W. (2d) 357 , the trial court issued an order which protected privileged matter without excluding relevant evidence.