DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Staat, 192 N.W.2d 192.

38 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
    We conclude that the court of appeals erred when it adopted a when a paramedic is acting “under the direction” of the treating physician, the physician-patient privilege statute protects communications between the patient and the paramedic.
  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    5 hospital physicians and other persons participating in defendant’s examination and treatment.”
  • State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
    1(d)," dicta in State v. Staat , 291 Minn. 394 , , 197 (1971), and State v. Heaney , , 173 (Minn. 2004), suggest that a blood sample falls within the definition of "information" protected by the privilege.
  • State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Respondent relies on State v. Staat , 291 Minn. 394 , and State v. Heaney , to argue that the district court correctly granted the motion to suppress his blood sample because Minnesota courts have long held that material items can be subject to the physician-patient privilege.
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    establish that “(1) a confidential psychologist-patient relationship existed between defendant and the psychologist, (2) during which the psychologist acquired information of the type contemplated by the privilege statute, (3) while attending the patient, and (4) which was necessary for diagnosis and treatment.” (citing State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 399, ), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1986).
  • State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    See, (stating that medical records generally fall under the physician-patient privilege but that a defendant can also waive this privilege); State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 398-400 , -97 (1971) (discussing the statutory requirements to determine whether the physician-patient privilege applies to a particular piece of evidence).
  • State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    See State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 397 , (stating that “theory underlying [the physician-patient] 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 healt
  • State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
    See State v. Stoat, 291 Minn. 394, 400 , (holding that the statute’s broad language encompasses physical articles, verbal communications, and any other knowledge obtained by the physician through his observation and examination).
  • 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).
  • State v. Kunz 457 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Kunz 457 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The supreme court in State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394 , discussed the history, purpose and essential elements of the physician-patient privilege.
  • State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
    State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 398
  • 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
    Appellants cite State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394 , and Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265
  • 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
    State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 397
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 399
  • King v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • King v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394 , mandates that a four-pronged test be met before a physician-patient relationship will be found to exist.
  • State v. Odenbrett 349 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Odenbrett 349 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1984
    See generally State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 396-97 , -96 (1971).
  • State v. Hembd 232 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Hembd 232 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1975
    “* * * The statute clearly provides that the physician shall not disclose any information or any opinion derived from attending the patient in a professional capacity without the consent of the patient.” In State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 403 , we recognized by way of dictum the problems inherent in the application of the statute to particular criminal cases, and suggested that it was “in urgent need of revision.” Subsequent to our decisions in Fontana and Staat, the United States Supreme Court s
  • State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
    State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394