Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Erickson v. MacArthur, 414 N.W.2d 406.

70 citing documents.

Daniel Brehmer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Ronald Jeffrey Smith v. Brian Robert Kessen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Ronald Jeffrey Smith v. Brian Robert Kessen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a trial court’s decision regarding discovery will not be disturbed.”).
Ali Alfureedy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Polaris, Inc., Petitioner, Minn. 2021
P. 26.03 ‘ to fashion protective orders and to order discovery only on specified terms and conditions.’ ” d 14, 17–18 (Minn. 2009 ) ().
Howard Norsetter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court has “broad discretion to fashion protective orders and to order discovery only on specified terms and conditions.”
Mark R. Krampf, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The [district] court has considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests.”
Franz J. Metzger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Daniel J. Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(b) provides for broad discovery in a civil proceeding: “[P]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party.” Trial courts “ha[ve] considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests.”
In re the Appeal from the Order of the Joint Board of Kandiyohi and Meeker Counties Establishing a … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a [district] court’s decision regarding discovery will not be dis turbed.”
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 877 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 877 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 26.03 “to fashion protective orders and to order discovery only on specified terms and conditions.”
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Christopher Robert WALSH, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 199813 872 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Christopher Robert WALSH, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 199813 872 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2015
(reviewing a referee’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing a district court’s decision regarding whether to extend a scheduling-order deadline for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing a district court’s rulings regarding discovery for an abuse of discretion).
Jeffrey Hugh Boldon v. Brian Perry Boldon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey Hugh Boldon v. Brian Perry Boldon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court “has considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests” and, “[a]bsent a clear abuse of discretion, a [district] court’s decision regarding discovery will not be disturbed.”
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Dillahunt, n/k/a Tami L. Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
FIA Card Services, N. A. v. Charles T. Gholl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
FIA Card Services, N. A. v. Charles T. Gholl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 406, 408 (Minn. 1987).
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
19, 2012); (reviewing a district court’s ruling on a discovery matter for an abuse of discretion).
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
District courts have “considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests.”
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
P. 26.03 “to fashion protective orders and to order discovery only on specified terms and conditions.”
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
Erickson v. MacArthur, *269
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
(whether Tax Court hearing should be closed to protect trade secrets); (whether newspaper retained unpublished photographs relevant to a criminal defense); (whether Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms records contained impeachment evidence); -10 (Minn.1987) (whether police department’s internal affairs files were proper for civil discovery); (whether confidential informant's testimony was necessary for a fair trial).
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 689 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2004
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 689 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2004
See Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, (“information subject to discovery must, at least, be likely to lead to relevant admissible evidence”); (stating that absent a clear abuse of discretion, a district court’s decision regarding discovery requests in civil actions will not be reversed on appeal).
Radke v. County of Freeborn 676 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Radke v. County of Freeborn 676 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Star Tribune v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 659 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Star Tribune v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 659 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Rahr Malting Co. v. County of Scott 632 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2001
Rahr Malting Co. v. County of Scott 632 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2001
See, (authorizing in camera hearing to evaluate whether newspaper reporter should be compelled to disclose unpublished information regarding a crime); (remanding for in camera review of requested discovery in order to balance competing interests at stake); (requiring that court review welfare department records in camera in child sex abuse case); (r
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The district court “has considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests.”
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zahavy v. University of Minnesota 544 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Zahavy v. University of Minnesota 544 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1996