Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heaney, 689 N.W.2d 168.

30 citing documents.

Laurissa Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc. Minn. 2026
(considering the physician-patient privilege).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
Such privileges hold a “unique place in the law.”
Laurissa Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
is a statutory evidentiary privilege that addresses when and under what circumstances therapists are permitted to testify about information acquired while treating a client”); (determining that the therapist-client privilege does not extend to third-party testimony); (considering whether “evidence is admissible in Minnesota where the evidence was properly obtained under Wisconsin law but Minnesota’s physician-patient privilege statute would preclude its admission at trial”).
Carley Pesente v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Carley Pesente v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 539; (“A conflict of laws concerning the admissibility of evidence protected by the physician-patient relationship is resolved by applying the two- prong test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139 (1971).”).
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. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
803(5)); (“The construction of statutes and rules is subject to de novo review.”).
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 v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
1826 ); , 173 n. 2 (Minn.2004) (describing in dicta that Schmerber and Oevering , “due to the natural exigency involved in obtaining blood-alcohol evidence, recognize the power of a peace officer to compel a blood sample from a driver where there is probable cause to believe the driver has violated a criminal vehicular operat
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
To support its position, the state cites numerous previous decisions of the supreme court and both published and unpublished opinions of this court, including Paul, d at 266 ; , 173 n. 2 (Minn.2004); Aguirre, d at 79 ; and our decision in Johnson, d at 252 .
State v. Schmidt 712 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2006
State v. Schmidt 712 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2006
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
in proposing that this court adopt an exclusionary-rule analysis in determining when to use DWI convictions and license revocations resulting from uncounseled pre-test determinations for enhancement purposes.