Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sprader v. Mueller, 121 N.W.2d 176.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“The existence of the privilege is a question of fact which must be proved by the one asserting it.”).
Minn. 2022
3 Application of the attorney-client privilege is a fact-intensive inquiry, and the district court is better equipped to analyze the facts, see St.
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 Stephen A. Lawrence, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Minn., see also Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111, 117, (“The existence of the privilege is a question of fact which must be proved by the one asserting it.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
“The existence of the [attorney-client] privilege is a question of fact which must be proved by the one asserting it.” Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111, 117
State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111
Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
In Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111, 117 , this court, in dealing with a problem analogous to the issue at bar, stated: “It is axiomatic that an attorney enjoys broad authority in dealing with the proce *378 dural aspects of his client’s cause.
Bakke v. Rainbow Club, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1975
Bakke v. Rainbow Club, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1975
Plaintiffs reason that the charge would be a logical extension of this court’s holding in Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111
Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
Integrity Mutual Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
[Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111 , 121 N.W.(2d) 176.]
Jones v. Peterson 156 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1968
Jones v. Peterson 156 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1968
Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111 , 121 N. W. (2d) 176 .
Sprader v. Mueller 130 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1964
Sprader v. Mueller 130 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1964
In a previous appeal from judgments entered against defendant, Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111 , 121 N. W. (2d) 176 , the actions were remanded for a new trial on the issue of liability only, and this to be contingent upon whether the court found upon evidence then to be presented that a statement made by one plaintiff, Mrs. Frances R. Sprader, to her insurance adjuster 32 days after the accident while she was