DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Odenbrett, 349 N.W.2d 265.

29 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K. and A. S., Parents 9 N.W.3d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K. and A. S., Parents 9 N.W.3d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (“But we decline to review this constitutional challenge because it was neither adequately raised nor considered in the C/D-14 district court and the appellate record is insufficient for review.”); (“We decline, therefore, to address this [due-process claim] when it was neither adequately raised nor considered below, and where, apparently because it was not raised below, the record inadequately presents the issue.”).
  • State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
    See, e.g. , State v. Odenbrett , , 268 (Minn. 1984) (holding that the Child Abuse Reporting Act works to preempt the privilege); Soukup v. Summer , 269 Minn. 472 , , 554-55 (1964) (holding that the district court acted within its discretion to instruct the jury to allow for an adverse inference when an injured party refused to allow me
  • Erickson v. Fullerton 619 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Erickson v. Fullerton 619 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (declining in a criminal case to reach constitutional *209 issue on privacy rights because not adequately raised or considered in district court and inadequately presented on appeal).
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (recognizing appellate courts do not address issues not adequately raised nor considered below).
  • State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    State v. Kremer, 307 Minn. 309, 312-13 , (even though underlying factual issues raised at trial relate to right to privacy challenge, issue not expressly or independently raised at district court).
  • Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • 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
    we recognized that when there is an allegation of an interference by the state into a protected right of privacy, "[t]o consider the constitutional issue * * * require[s] * * * a balancing of the * * * interest in [the] privacy with the state's need to intrude on that privacy."
  • R.S. v. State 459 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1990
    we recognized that when there is an allegation of an interference by the state into a protected right of privacy, “[t]o consider the constitutional issue * * * require[s] * * * a balancing of the * * * interest in [the] privacy with the state’s need to intrude on that privacy.” In Odenbrett , we furt
  • In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten 424 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten 424 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (disclosure by mental health center staff authorized by Child Abuse Reporting Act).
  • Matter of Schroeder 415 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Matter of Schroeder 415 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    the Minnesota Supreme Court referred to the state’s “compelling interest in identifying and protecting the victims of child abuse.” Id.
  • State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The medical privilege prohibits “evidentia-ry use of communications arising between a patient and his physician, psychologist or registered nurse.”
  • State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • 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 medical privilege prohibits only “evidentiary use of communications arising between a patient and his physician, psychologist or registered nurse.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
    Cases of this court discussing whether a second confession or statement was the fruit of an earlier, State v. Raymond, 305 Minn. 160
  • In re the Petition for Certain Records of the McLeod County Juvenile Court 352 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In re the Petition for Certain Records of the McLeod County Juvenile Court 352 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “The state, of course, has a compelling interest in identifying and protecting victims of child abuse.”