Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite National Texture Corp. v. Hymes, 282 N.W.2d 890.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Attorney-client privilege is attached to communications that “seek to elicit legal advice from an attorney acting in that capacity, that relate to that purpose, and that are made in confidence by the client .” Nat’l (emphasis added).
In the Matter of: Tessa Mortenson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 392; (stating that “purpose for disqualification of [a former] attorney .
Northern Metals, LLC v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Crow Wing Recycling, Inc.,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Northern Metals, LLC v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Crow Wing Recycling, Inc.,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Rule 1.9(a) seeks “to ensure the attorney’s absolute fidelity and to guard against inadvertent use of confidential information.” Nat’l d 890, 894 (Minn. 1979).
In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. 2023
(alteration in original) (quoting Nat’l ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to “encourage the client to confide openly and fully in his attorney without fear that the communications will be divulged and to enable the attorney to act more effectively on behalf of his client.” Nat’l
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Communications that seek to elicit legal advice from an attorney acting in that capacity, that relate to that purpose, and that are made in confiden ce by the client are protected from disclosure, unless the privilege is waived.” Nat’l (citing Brown v. St.
Kristen Glaros Hanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Nat ’l Texture Corp. v. Hymes
In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel File No. 41310 899 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2017
In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel File No. 41310 899 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2017
See Nat’l (“The purpose of the [attorney-client] privilege is to encourage *827 the client to confide openly and fully in his attorney -without fear .that the communications will be divulged....”).
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
unless the privilege is waived.” Nat’l
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Paul Arthur MOE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 264477 851 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2014
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Paul Arthur MOE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 264477 851 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2014
See Nat’l (“An attorney should not use information he received in the course of representing a client to the disadvantage of that client.”).
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Conduct 1.9(a) protects two separate interests: (1) “ensuring] the attorney’s absolute fidelity” and (2) “guarding] against inadvertent use of confidential information.” Nat 'l
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Under Minnesota law, “communications that seek to elicit legal advice from an attorney acting in that capacity, that relate to that purpose, and that are made in confidence by the client are protected from disclosure, unless the privilege is waived.” Nat’l (quotation omitted).
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota & Wisconsin Lakes & Pines 768 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota & Wisconsin Lakes & Pines 768 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that “purpose for disqualification of [former] attorney ...
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
The attorney-client privilege exists “ ‘to *739 encourage the client to confide openly and fully in his attorney without fear that the communications will be divulged and to enable the attorney to act more effectively on behalf of his client.’ ” Kobluk, d at 440 (quoting Nat’l ).
Kobluk v. University of Minnesota 574 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1998
Kobluk v. University of Minnesota 574 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1998
“The purpose of the privilege is to encourage the client to confide openly and fully in his attorney without fear that the communications will be divulged and to enable the attorney to act more effectively on behalf of his client.”
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
Brown, 241 Minn. at 33 , d at 700 .
Carlson v. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 475 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Carlson v. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 475 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co., -69 (Minn.1989); Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., -33 (Minn.1983)
Production Credit Ass'n of Mankato v. Buckentin 410 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1987
Production Credit Ass'n of Mankato v. Buckentin 410 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1987
See e.g., Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Humphrey on Behalf of State v. McLaren 402 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1987
Humphrey on Behalf of State v. McLaren 402 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1987
the corporation’s president had consulted with the corporation’s attorney about a patent to be applied for in his own name.
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
Professional Conduct 1.9 (emphasis added); -95 (Minn.1979) (“lawyers should avoid even the appearance of conflict”).
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co. 335 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1983
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co. 335 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1983
Balancing the equities and applying the “substantial relationship” the trial court found (1) that Mr. Levy’s connection to plaintiffs was solely through their counsel; (2) that his representation was limited to collection of the settlement made with the Continental Coin defendants; (3) that plaintiffs did not show that the earlier discussions with Mr. Levy on bankruptcy
Jones v. Fleischhacker 325 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1982
Jones v. Fleischhacker 325 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1982
In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 530 F.2d 83, 88-89 (5th Cir.1976)
Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co. 308 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co. 308 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981