Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. St. Paul City Railway Co., 62 N.W.2d 688.

88 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
Co., (“When facts are presented upon which the claimed privilege rests, it then becomes necessary for the court to determine whether the privilege exists much the same as in the determination of other fact issues.”).
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Polaris, Inc., Petitioner, Minn. 2021
quoted in d at 18; (“The existence of the privilege is a question of fact which must be proved by the one asserting it.”).
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
Co., 241 Minn. 15, 35-36 , -02 (1954).
In Re the Child of Simon 662 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Child of Simon 662 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., 241 Minn. 15, 36 , -02 (1954) (concluding that report prepared pursuant to an established business routine was admissible under business-records exception where report had many uses besides litigation).
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
Kobluk v. University of Minnesota 574 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1998
Kobluk v. University of Minnesota 574 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1998
Kobluk v. University of Minnesota 556 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kobluk v. University of Minnesota 556 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Consequently, when one party claims the privilege, the burden rests with that party “to present facts establishing the privilege unless it appears from the face of the document itself that it is privileged.” Brown v. Saint Paul City Ry., 241 Minn. 15, 34
Stockdale Bancorporation v. Kjellberg 479 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stockdale Bancorporation v. Kjellberg 479 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co., 241 Minn. 15, 30 , -99 (1954).
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 466 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 466 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Paul City Ry., 241 Minn. 15, 30 , -99 (1954).
In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten 424 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten 424 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Production Credit Ass'n of Mankato v. Buckentin 396 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Production Credit Ass'n of Mankato v. Buckentin 396 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Paul City Railway Co., 241 Minn. 15 , as stating a confidential relationship must exist between an attorney and his client.
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 396 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 396 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1986
Paul City Railway Co., 241 Minn. 15, 26 , we held that a patient’s self-serving statements contained in a hospital record are not admissible to prove how an accident happened when the record is offered by the patient.
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paul City Railway Co., 241 Minn. 15, 26 , (footnote omitted).
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
Paul City Railway, 241 Minn. 15, 35 , Minn.R.Civ.P.
Matter of Estate of Olsen 357 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Estate of Olsen 357 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Brown v. Saint Paul City Railway, 241 Minn. 15, 30 , contradicts that argument and says that discovery orders are reviewable upon appeal from a final judgment.
O'CONNOR v. Johnson 287 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1979
O'CONNOR v. Johnson 287 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1979
National Texture Corp. v. Hymes 282 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1979
National Texture Corp. v. Hymes 282 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1979
Paul City Railway, 241 Minn. 15, 33 , , *896 700 (1954), citing 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2292.
Romero v. City of Richfield 253 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
Romero v. City of Richfield 253 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
Paul Ry., 241 Minn. 15 , [1954]), (b) reports such as this are not admissible as public records if they contain opinions (Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 233 Minn. 410 , [1951]), and (c) such reports are not admissible as representative admissions if they are in opinion form (Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee
Wadena v. Bush 232 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1975
Wadena v. Bush 232 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1975
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis 214 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1974
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis 214 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1974
Co. 241 Minn. 15 , , 44 A. L. R. 2d 535 [1954]), and on hearsay.
State v. Staat 192 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1971
State v. Staat 192 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1971
Co. 241 Minn. 15 , , 44 A. L. R. 2d 535 (1954); 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961) § 2381.
State v. Jensen 174 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1970
State v. Jensen 174 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1970
Co. 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N. W. (2d) 688 , 44 A. L. R. (2d) 535.
City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom 157 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1968
City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom 157 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1968
Co. 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N. W. (2d) 688 , 44 A. L. R. (2d) 535, and Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 248 Minn. 240 , 80 N. W. (2d) 30 .
Leininger v. Swadner 156 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1968
Leininger v. Swadner 156 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1968
Co. 241 Minn. 15, 34 , 62 N. W. (2d) 688, 701 , that the question of whether a communication is privileged is a question of fact and that “[w]hen upon a discovery motion a party litigant claims privilege, the burden rests on him to present facts establishing the privilege.” Whether any element of privilege might appear to exist is for

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by