Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 226 N.W. 974.

44 citing documents.

Stephani Martinsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231, 203 N.W.
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 N.W.
Lewis v. St. Cloud State University 693 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis v. St. Cloud State University 693 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
*472 See Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226 , 203 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
We note that historically this common law malice was often referred to as “actual malice.” See, e.g., Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 230-31 , 203 N.W.
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1998
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1998
published retraction may mitigate damages); (absolute privilege in defamation for public service or administration of justice); Mahnke v. Northwest Publications Inc., 280 Minn. 328, (conditional privilege regarding public officials and candidates for office — official must prove actual malice); Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226 , 203 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
“Malice may be proved by extrinsic evidence of personal ill feeling, or by intrinsic evidence such as the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.” Fmnkson, d at 144 (quoting Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 N.W.
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Malice can be shown by extrinsic evidence of personal spite, as well as by intrinsic evidence such as “the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.” Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, (quoting Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 N.W.
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 532 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Friedell v. Blakely Printing, 163 Minn. 226, 229-30 , 203 N.W.
Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 229-30 , 203 N.W.
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
It should be kept in mind, however, if a defamatory statement has been found to be conditionally privileged, that “[wjhen so privileged, the law does not imply malice from the communication itself, nor from its falsity * * *,” Friedell v. Blakely *451 Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 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
(citing Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 N.W.
Britton v. Koep 470 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1991
Britton v. Koep 470 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1991
The Supreme Court, in New York Times , recognized Minnesota as a state that followed a rule similar to the New York Times rule and cited Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 230 , 203 N.W.
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Frankson, d at 144 (citing Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 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
“Malice may be proved by extrinsic evidence of personal ill feeling, or by intrinsic evidence such as the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.” Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 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
5 Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226 , 203 N.W.
Beatty v. Republican Herald Publishing Company 189 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1971
Beatty v. Republican Herald Publishing Company 189 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1971
Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226 , .
Mahnke v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 160 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1968
Mahnke v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 160 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1968
711 , 98 P. 281 .” Cited by the Supreme Court as an example of a “like rule” was the Minnesota case of Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226, 230 , , 975.
Rose v. Koch 154 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1967
Rose v. Koch 154 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1967
See, Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226, 232 , , 976.
Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
Clancy v. Daily News Corp. 202 Minn. 1 , ; Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226 , .
Porter v. Grennan Bakeries, Inc. 16 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1944
Porter v. Grennan Bakeries, Inc. 16 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1944
2 See, Schmidt v. Minor, 150 Minn. 236 , ; Cressy v. Republic Creosoting Co. 108 Minn. 349 , ; Merrill v. Coates, 101 Minn. 43 , ; Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226 , ; Manion v. Jewell Tea Co. 135 Minn. 250 , ; Barrett v. M. St.
Clancy v. Daily News Corporation 277 N.W. 264 Minn. 1938
Clancy v. Daily News Corporation 277 N.W. 264 Minn. 1938
proved by extrinsic evidence of personal ill feeling or otherwise, or by intrinsic evidence, such as exaggerated language of the libel, the mode and extent of publication and repetition, or other matters in excess of the qualified privilege.” We deem this substantially complied with the instructions plaintiff requested (assignment of errors 3(e)) and accords with Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co. 163 Minn. 226 , .
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.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by