Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McKenzie v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 183 N.W. 516.

36 citing documents.

William DeRosa, Minn. 2019
J. Burns Int ’l Detective Agency , (concluding that in-house statements were publications, though subject to privilege); Hebner v. Great N. Ry.
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.’ ” Stuempges, d at 257 (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
Under the common law definition, malice exists where the defendant “ ‘made the statement from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring plaintiff.’ ” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int'l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
To prove actual malice, a plaintiff must show the statement was made “ ‘from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.’” Stuempges, d at 257 (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Bums Int’l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
(quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 N.W.
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
at 257; McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 N.W.
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Common law malice in the defamation context has a distinct definition: whether the defendant made the statement "from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Bums Inti Detective Agency, 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 N.W.
Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 467 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 467 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
ntroduces a subjective element into the trial court’s determination of a motion for summary judgment, raising the question whether the statement was made “from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 N.W.
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Common law malice in this context has been defined as making the statement “from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
at 257 (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
at 257 (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
See also McKenzie v. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311 , 183 N.W.
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 367 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1985
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 367 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1985
Burns Int'l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
The court’s statement of law on malice conforms almost exactly with declarations of the supreme court in Steumpges, d at 257 , citing McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l. Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
It is well-settled in Minnesota that to demonstrate malice in a defamation action the plaintiff must prove that the defendant “made the statement from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 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
Our conclusion that there was no jury issue in this case is compelled by our holdings in Otto v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, 262 Minn. 408 , McKenzie v. W. J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc. 149 Minn. 311 , Hebner v. G. N. Ry.
McLaughlin v. Quinn 237 N.W. 598 Minn. 1931
McLaughlin v. Quinn 237 N.W. 598 Minn. 1931
D. Agency, Inc. 149 Minn. 311 , ; Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226 , ; 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 226 N.W. 974 Minn. 1925
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 226 N.W. 974 Minn. 1925
Agency, 149 Minn. 311 , ; Tawney v. Simonson, W. & H. Co. 109 Minn. 341 , , 27 L. R. A. 1035; Howard v. Dickie, 120 Mich.