Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wild v. Rarig, 234 N.W.2d 775.

232 citing documents.

Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
2 The history of our treatment of this particular tort claim can be traced primarily to three *215 decisions: Witte Transportation Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 291 Minn. 461 , Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 , and United Wild Rice
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
*824 In Wild v. Rarig, the supreme court noted that “[wjrongful interference with contract and wrongful interference with business relationships, also known as interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective advantage, are actionable tort claims in Minnesota.” 302 Minn. 419 , 442 & n. 16, , 790 & n. 16 (1975) (citation omitted).
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
27, 1986), this court construed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 443-47 , -93 (1975), and held that the two-year statute of limitations under section 541.07(1) applies to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as an “other tort resulting in personal injury.” The Christenson court noted that the Wild court examined the characteristics of torts t
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 447 , for example, the Minnesota Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether two different statutes of limitation should apply to two different torts, despite the fact that both torts were based on the same statement made by the defendant.
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
See Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 449-50 , -95 (1975) (noting that absent active fraudulent concealment of the cause of action by the defendant, “ignorance or lack of knowledge ...
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
But the district court nevertheless dismissed the implied-covenant claims, reasoning that “Minnesota law does not recognize a separate cause of action for the same when it arises from the same conduct as a breach of contract claim.” The district court relied on Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 448-50 , -95 (1975) (explaining that the statute of limitations for defamation usually begins to run when the defamatory statement is published, but “[fraudulent concealment of a defamatory publication will toll the 2-year statute of limitations until discovery or reasonable opportunity for discove
TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon 784 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon 784 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
This is because prejudice is “[t]he primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial,” Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 433 , and because “[t]he refusal to grant a new trial will be reversed only if misconduct is so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand,” (quotation omitted).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Pillsbury Co., d at 248 -49 (citing Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 , ); see also Morris v. American Family Mut.
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
306, 309 (D.Minn.1986) (“[I]n Minnesota, a plaintiff cannot elude the absolute privilege by relabeling a claim that sounds in defa *310 mation.”); cf. Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 446-47 , (concluding that where a wrongful interference with business relationships claim stemmed from and grew out of the defamation as in a defamation claim, both actions were governed by the statute of limitations for defamation).
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
In order to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements, appellant must submit a foundation that the statements are “actually inconsistent,” or that the declarant “fails to recollect” the prior statement, Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 458
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 446-47 , (holding wrongful interference with business relationships is included in Minn.Stat.
Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. Safe-Glo Products Corp. 582 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. Safe-Glo Products Corp. 582 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 433
Cole v. Star Tribune 581 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cole v. Star Tribune 581 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
§ 541.07(1) (1996) (two-year statute of limitations for defamation); Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 447 , (same).
Deli v. University of Minnesota 578 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Deli v. University of Minnesota 578 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440 , see William Lloyd Prosser, The Borderland of Tort and Contract, in Selected Topics On the Law of Torts 380, 426 (1953) (noting in contract actions, there is no recovery for mental suffering).
Morrison v. Doyle 570 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Morrison v. Doyle 570 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440 , (emphasis added).
Cherne Contracting Corp. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 572 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cherne Contracting Corp. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 572 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Under Minnesota law, a party is not entitled to recover tort damages for a breach of contract, absent an “exceptional case” where the breach of contract “constitutes or is accompanied by an independent tort.” Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440-41 , -80 (1975).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co. 572 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co. 572 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 451
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul 570 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul 570 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Torts involving personal injury— Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (1) In Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 , the Minnesota Supreme Court identified several factors for courts to consider in deciding whether a cause of action sufficiently resembles the five torts listed in section 541.07(1) — libel, slander, assault, battery, and false imprisonment — -to be subject to the statute’s two-year limitation
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. 566 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440 , appeal dismissed and cert.
Zagaros v. Erickson 558 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zagaros v. Erickson 558 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 447 , (holding plaintiffs suit sounded in defamation because “regardless of what the suit is labeled, the thing done to cause any damage to [plaintiff] eventually stems from and grew out of the defamation”).
Lickteig v. Alderson, Ondov, Leonard & Sween, P.A. 556 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1996
Lickteig v. Alderson, Ondov, Leonard & Sween, P.A. 556 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1996
Thus, even a malicious or bad-faith motive in breaching a contract does not convert a contract action into a tort action sufficient to support an award of emotional distress damages, Haag-enson, d at 652, or other extra-contractual damages, such as punitive damages, Moore v. John E. Blomquist, Inc., Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440-42 , -90 (1975), cert.
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Appellants, citing Wild v. Rang, 302 Minn. 419 , cert.
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 444 , (quoting Bryant v. American Surety Co., 69 Minn. 30, 32 , 71 N.W.
Sherman v. Marden 525 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1994