Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hebner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 80 N.W. 1128.
- Karen K. Osowski, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
William DeRosa,
Minn. 2019
Co., –30 (Minn. 1899) (same).
- Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 For a defamatory statement to be protected by a qualified privilege, the statement must be made in good faith and “‘must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable or probable cause.’” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn. 1980) (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292, 80 N.W.
- Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 594 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co.
594 N.W.2d 555
Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health
573 N.W.2d 733
Minn. Ct. App. 1998
For a qualified privilege to apply, a statement “‘must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable or probable cause.’” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980) (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
-
Bol v. Cole
561 N.W.2d 143
Minn. 1997
For a defamatory statement to be protected by a qualified privilege, the statement must be made in good faith and “must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable or probable cause.” Stuempges, d at 256 -57 (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Ferrell v. Cross 557 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
-
Ferrell v. Cross
557 N.W.2d 560
Minn. 1997
at 96-97 , d at 374 (quoting Hebner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc.
544 N.W.2d 490
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980) (citing Hebner v. Great N. R.R., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Singleton v. Christ the Servant Evangelical Lutheran Church 541 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
Singleton v. Christ the Servant Evangelical Lutheran Church
541 N.W.2d 606
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
at 256-57 (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
Strauss v. Thorne
490 N.W.2d 908
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler
481 N.W.2d 120
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stuempges, d at 256-57 , quoted in Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
474 N.W.2d 174
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stuempges, d at 256 -57 (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
-
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.
461 N.W.2d 374
Minn. 1990
Similarly, in Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289 , 80 N.W.
- Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.
448 N.W.2d 526
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The Frankson court listed two other Minnesota cases which followed a “need to know” qualification: McBride , 306 Minn, at 99, d at 375 (communication of suspicion to employees investigating misconduct was not actionable because “any publication to any of them was privileged”); Hebner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission
428 N.W.2d 815
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stuempges, d at 256 -57 (quoting Hebner v. Great Northern Railway, 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc.
428 N.W.2d 574
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
*579 Stuempges, d at 256 -57 (quoting Hebner v. Great Northern Railway, 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 408 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1987
-
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
408 N.W.2d 569
Minn. 1987
In Minnesota a communication, to be privileged, “must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable or probable cause,” Stuempges, d at 256 -57 (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Frankson v. Design Space International 394 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1986
-
Frankson v. Design Space International
394 N.W.2d 140
Minn. 1986
In Hebner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 78 Minn. 289 , 80 N.W.
- Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
-
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
389 N.W.2d 876
Minn. 1986
Stuempges, d at 256 -57 (quoting Hebner v. Great Northern Railway, 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Frankson v. Design Space International 380 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Frankson v. Design Space International
380 N.W.2d 560
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hebner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 78 Minn. 289, 290-91 , 80 N.W.
- Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 361 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
361 N.W.2d 875
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Co., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- Utecht v. Shopko Department Store 324 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1982
-
Utecht v. Shopko Department Store
324 N.W.2d 652
Minn. 1982
Hebner v. Great Northern Railway Co., 78 Minn. 289 , 80 N.W.
- Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co. 297 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1980
-
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
297 N.W.2d 252
Minn. 1980
Ever since Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
- McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 235 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1975
- McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 235 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1975
- Otto v. Charles T. Miller Hospital 115 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1962
- Otto v. Charles T. Miller Hospital 115 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1962
- Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 226 N.W. 974 Minn. 1925
-
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co.
226 N.W. 974
Minn. 1925
Co. 78 Minn. 289 , , 79 Am.