Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kobluk v. University of Minnesota, 574 N.W.2d 436.

27 citing documents.

ROA Rochester, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
of Minnesota , , 440 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted) ).
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
of Minn., see also In re Polaris, Inc., (Anderson, J., dissenting) (“We therefore presume that a communication regarding a matter committed to an attorney is privileged in its entirety .
In re Daniel Cragg, Dalvin Cook v. Gracelyn Trimble, Daniel Cragg,... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Daniel Cragg, Dalvin Cook v. Gracelyn Trimble, Daniel Cragg,... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
of Minn., -43 (Minn. 1998) (reasoning that a “preliminary draft” or a document may constitute a privileged communication between attorney and client even if the final product is intended for disclosure).
Minn. 2022
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Polaris, Inc., Petitioner, Minn. 2021
In re Stephen A. Lawrence, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of: Walmart Inc., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
of Minn., rev’d on other grounds
Jeanne Shellum, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Minn., (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Minn., see also Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn. 111, 117, (“The existence of the privilege is a question of fact which must be proved by the one asserting it.”).
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
of Minn., -42 (Minn.1998) (noting that not all information communicated to an attorney is protected by attorney-client privilege, but only that information which is communicated for the purpose of obtaining legal advice).
City Pages v. State 655 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
City Pages v. State 655 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
of Minn., concluded that both preliminary drafts of a letter conveying the university’s decision to deny tenure were protected by the privilege.
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
of Minnesota, (attorney-client privilege); (medical privilege); (marital-communications privilege); In re Swenson, 183 Minn. 602, 603 , 237 N.W.
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
of Minn., (noting that disclosure to a third party may waive the confidentiality element of the attorney-client privilege).
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
(noting application of attorney-client privilege requires request for legal advice and that privilege does not apply where attorney acts as mere scrivener).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by