Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lender, 124 N.W.2d 355.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 564 , (“Whether a communication is of a religious or spiritual nature is a question of fact frequently addressed by the courts in the context of the application of the clergy privilege.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
See State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 564
State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 564
Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
We recognize that the assertion of privilege results in the suppression of evidence that “otherwise may be not only admissible but crucial to a claim or defense.” State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 564
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 564
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 564
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
See State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561
State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
In State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561 , we concluded that certain communications made to welfare agencies were not privileged, relying on Minn.St.
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
See, also, State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561
Kahl v. Minnesota Wood Specialty, Inc. 277 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1979
Kahl v. Minnesota Wood Specialty, Inc. 277 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561
In Re Welfare of Wachlin 245 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1976
In Re Welfare of Wachlin 245 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1976
595.02(5), which provides: “A public officer shall not be allowed to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when the public interest would suffer by disclosure.” *375 In State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561, 565 , we held: “When privilege is claimed under this statute, there must be proof not only of a confidential communication but also that disclosure would seriously injure the public interest.” Appellant has not shown how disclosure in the instant case would “seriously injure th
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
In State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561 , we concluded that certain communications made to welfare agencies were not privileged, relying on Minn. St.
State v. Jensen 174 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1970
State v. Jensen 174 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1970
See, State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561 , 124 N. W. (2d) 355 ; Brown v. St.