DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Andring, 342 N.W.2d 128.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ryan James Martens, Appellant Minn. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ryan James Martens, Appellant Minn. 2025
    3 At a hearing on Martens’s motion, the State contended that the therapist was a mandatory reporter, and accordingly, any information required to be in a maltreatment report was not protected by the therapist-client privilege, (abrogating the therapist-client privilege “only to the extent that it would permit evidentiary use of the information required to be contained in the maltreatment report”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Martens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Martens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    6 Andring that the mandated-reporter statute “abrogate[s] privilege only to the extent that it would permit evidentiary use of the information required to be contained in the maltreatment report.” (interpreting a former version of sections 260E.04 and 260E.06 that contained a similar provision abrogating therapist-client privilege in cases of child neglect or abuse).
  • State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    23, 1990); (holding that statements made in group-psychotherapy sessions were privileged).
  • Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    23, 1990); (disclosure in group setting is privileged if group sessions are confidential and integral part of patient’s treatment).
  • RS v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
  • R.S. v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
  • RS v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
  • R.S. v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Kunz 457 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Kunz 457 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See, (statements made in group psychotherapy sessions were privileged).
  • State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Willette 421 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Willette 421 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See, -33 (Minn.1984) (reporting act abrogates doctor-patient privilege to permit evidentiary use of information required to be contained in abuse reports).
  • State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Friend 385 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Friend 385 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    the supreme court recognized that federal legislation protecting the confidentiality of patient records does not preclude the use of patient records in child abuse criminal proceedings to the extent required by the Minnesota Maltreatment of Minors Reporting Act.
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The evidentiary privileges contained in § 595.02(d) and (g) constitute what the supreme court has termed the “medical privilege.” , 132 n. 2 (Minn.1984).
  • State v. Brown 376 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Brown 376 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Nelson v. Ninneman 373 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Nelson v. Ninneman 373 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Odenbrett 349 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Odenbrett 349 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1984
    we held these privileges include communications made in confidential group therapy sessions which are part of the patient’s diagnosis and treatment.