Mn Judicial Branch Logo
Find Court

Home > Appellate Courts > Court of Appeals > Court of Appeals Opinions >

Court of Appeals Published Opinions



Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.

Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail.  All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately.  Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address.  Please go to for instructions how to register your e-mail address.





A14-0432       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kyle Dean McClain, Appellant.
                      St. Louis County District Court, Hon. Mark A. Munger.
           The inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is limited to physical evidence and does not apply to statements obtained after an unlawful search.
           Reversed and remanded.  Chief Judge Edward J. Cleary.
           Concurring specially, Judge Kevin G. Ross.

       Jerry Expose, Jr., Appellant, vs. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Respondent,
                      Nina Mattson, Respondent.
           Ramsey County District Court, Hon. John H. Guthmann.
           1.   The immunity conferred by Minnesota Statutes section 148.975, subdivisions 4 and 8, does not apply to a mental-health therapist who is not licensed by the Board of Psychology.
           2.   The common-law doctrine of absolute privilege, which, in certain circumstances, protects persons from liability for statements made in judicial proceedings, cannot be invoked by a mental-health therapist who is alleged to have breached the duty of confidentiality imposed by the psychologist-patient privilege in Minnesota Statutes section 595.02, subdivision 1(g), except to the extent that the therapist was specifically required by a trial court's evidentiary ruling to give testimony.
           3.   A claim of invasion of privacy by publication of private facts may not be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not serve an affidavit of expert review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 145.682 because expert testimony is not necessary to establish a prima facie case.
           Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  Judge Matthew E. Johnson.