Eickman v. Troll
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1956, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ex Parte Enzor (Ala. 1960)
- Baskerville v. Baskerville (Minn. 1956)
- In re Illidge (Or. 1939)
- Ex Parte McDonough (Cal. 1915)
- Henderson v. Eckern (Minn. 1911)
- People ex rel. Vogelstein v. Warden of the County Jail (New York Supreme Court 1934)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied. No one can read the letter from defendant to Peck without understanding it as a request to defend the action, and as authorizing him to do what in his judgment, as an attorney, might be necessary to that end. It gave him authority to enter an appearance. The letter was not a privileged communication. It is only a communication made because of, and in the course of, the confidential relation of client and attorney, which is privileged. A mere request by one to an attorney to become and act as his attorney, is not made because of such relation, but for-, the purpose of creating it. The fact of the retainer or employment may be proved by the attorney, although any communication beyond that, though made at the same time, may not be.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.