Cited by

tify in court.” d therapist from testifying at trial about the defendant’s statements to the therapist because the mandated-reporter exception to the privilege applied); Hope Coalition, d at 659 (holding that the sexual-assault-counselor privilege in subdivision 1(k) prevented disclosure of records for in camera review in the context of a criminal proceeding); (holding that the physician-patient privilege under subdivision 1(d) did not apply to the defendant’s blood sample and test results and,

The physician-patient privilege is “solely a creature of statute.” (“The physician-patient privilege did not exist at common law in Minnesota.

(explaining that appellate courts “are bound to [their] prior statements or rulings on an issue only when the statement or ruling was necessary to the decision in the case”); (stating that “a ruling not necessary to the decision of a case can be re

(explaining that the supreme court is “bound to [its] prior statements or rulings on an issue .

(“We are bound to our prior statements or rulings on an issue only when the statement or ruling was necessary to the decision in the case” (emphasis added)).

1(d), and is “solely a creature of statute.” d 626, 631 (Minn. 2019).

See State v. Atwood , (noting that the “paradigmatic example of nonessential dicta” is an alternative conclusion that would not change the outcome of a case).

13 “Dictum can be either judicial dictum or obiter dictum, depending on how involved the parties’ arguments and the court’s analysis are.” State v. Atwood , aff’d

See State v. Atwood , (“We are bound to our prior statements or rulings on an issue only when the statement or ruling is necessary to the decision in the case.”).

See State v. Atwood , (stating that obiter dictum is not precedential), aff’d

(Gildea, C.J., dissenting) (discussing the importance of the fact that the Legislature did not amend a statute).