Legal Opinion
Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 15, 1989No. C6-88-2515PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NORTON, Judge.
Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial court’s enforcement of its order denying leave to conduct an informal discussion pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 5 (1988). The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
FACTS
Roger and Delores Blohm commenced a malpractice action against petitioners Dr. Peter Kieley and Metropolitan Internists and against respondents Dr. William Price and the Minneapolis Urological Surgeons. Dr. Price performed prostate surgery on Roger Blohm and subsequently prescribed *814an estrogen compound. Dr. Kieley saw Blohm after the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wenninger v. MuesingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. SchumacherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Marriage of Tischendorf v. TischendorfSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Richardson v. School Board of Independent School District No. 271Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Parker v. O'PHELANCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- In re Baycol Products LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2003
- In Re QuinnCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- In re Access to Law Enforcement Records Relating to the Arrest of QuinnCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989