Legal Opinion
Brainerd Daily Dispatch v. Dehen
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 22, 2005No. A04-909PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUDSON, Judge.
In 2003, the Brainerd City Council met in closed session pursuant to the attorney-client-privilege exception to the open-meeting law, Minn.Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(b) (2002), for a confidential consultation with legal counsel appointed by its insurer concerning a threatened legal action. The Brainerd Daily Dispatch sued for violation of the open-meeting law, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. Because the district court correctly held that the attorney-client-privilege exception applies, we affirm.
FACTS
The City of Brainerd holds an annual…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community SchoolsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Prior Lake American v. MaderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Jendro v. Honeywell, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Free Press v. County of Blue EarthCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. AllinderCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Ronning v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- Brown v. Cannon Falls TownshipCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurnce Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- James W. Olinger and Larry C. Meyer v. Robert Smith, Walter Utman and Gaylord Pitt, Harrison County, Iowa and Utman Drainage DistrictCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.