Kahl v. Minnesota Wood Specialty, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
ROGOSHESKE, Justice.
The narrow issue presented by these proceedings initiated in this court for a writ of prohibition is whether, in a workers’ compensation proceeding to impose a penalty for unreasonably and vexatiously delaying payment pursuant to Minn.St. 176.225, an employer-insurer is precluded from asserting the attorney-client privilege. We hold that the applicable provisions of our workers’ compensation laws do not abrogate the common-law privilege reiterated in § 595.-02(2) and that it may be asserted to prevent disclosure of any communications falling within the purpose and scope of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
- Radiant Burners, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. American Gas Association, Peoples Gas Light and Coke CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963
- Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas AssociationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1962
- Johnson v. IversonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- O'CONNOR v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- State v. Catch the BearSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
- Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Kobluk v. University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.