Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Turner, 550 N.W.2d 622.

31 citing documents.

In re Washington County, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
For such a writ to issue from an appellate court, a petitioner must meet three requirements: “(1) an inferior court or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi- judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” (quotation omitted).
Energy Transfer LP (formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.), et al., Appellants, vs. Greenpeace International ... Minn. 2025
Energy Transfer LP (formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.), et al., Appellants, vs. Greenpeace International ... Minn. 2025
–31 (Minn. 1996) (“[I]t is clear that [the MFFIA] was a reaction to the Branzburg decision, and was intended to provide additional protection to reporters and their employers against subpoenas from litigating parties.”).
Energy Transfer LP (formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.) v. Greenpeace International ... 7 N.W.3d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Energy Transfer LP (formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.) v. Greenpeace International ... 7 N.W.3d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Our supreme court has expressly recognized that the MFFIA “was intended to provide additional protection [beyond those provided by the First Amendment] to reporters and their employers against subpoenas from litigating parties.” (noting that the MFFIA was enacted in reaction to Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), in which the Supreme Court declined to adopt a broad testimonial privilege for reporters under the First Amendment).
In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. 2023
We have also stated that a writ of prohibition may issue “to correct an error of law in the lower court where no other adequate remedy is available to the petitioner and enforcement of the trial court’s order would result in irremediable harm.”
In re Hope Coalition, Petitioner. Minn. 2022
See, (“[The purpose of the writ is] t o correct an error of law in the [district] court where no other adequate remedy is available to the appellant and enforcement of the trial court’s order would result in irremediable harm.”).
In re Stephen A. Lawrence, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A writ of prohibition may issue “to correct an error of law in the [district] court where no other adequate remedy is available to the petitioner and enforcement of the [district] court’s order would result in irremediable harm.”
In re B.H., Minn. 2020
In re Program to Aid Victims of Sexual Assault, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N To obtain a writ of prohibition, PAVSA must show three things: “(1) an inferior court or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
at 4 (quoting State v. Turner , , 625 (Minn. 1996) ).
Range Development Company of Chisholm v. Star Tribune, Paul McEnroe 885 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Range Development Company of Chisholm v. Star Tribune, Paul McEnroe 885 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As the Minnesota Supreme Court has noted, “it is clear that the Act was a reaction to the Branzburg decision, 10 and was intended to provide additional protection to reporters and their employers against subpoenas from litigating parties.”
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
re there is no other adequate remedy at law[;]” (3) when “[the writ] will settle a rule of practice affecting all litigants,” Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 55 , and (4) “to correct an error of law in the lower court where no other adequate remedy is available to the petitioner and enforcement of the trial court’s order would do irreparable harm,”
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Involving File No. 17139 720 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2006
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Involving File No. 17139 720 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 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 depar
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 668 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 648 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 648 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
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 sta
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
we applied the Supreme Court’s analysis in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct.
Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc.(KARE 11) 557 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc.(KARE 11) 557 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(holding that constitutional privilege requires in camera review of journalist’s unpublished photos before disclosure compelled).