Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 235 N.W.2d 371.

53 citing documents.

Emily Anick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
9 McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
at 149-50 ; see also McBride v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 306 Minn. 93 , , 374 (1975) ("Communications between an employer's agents made in the course of investigating or punishing employee misconduct are made upon a proper occasion and for a proper purpose, as the employer has an important interest in protecting itself and the public against dishonest or otherwise harmful
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
If a statement is protected by qualified privilege, recovery may be had only upon a showing of actual malice, which is “actual ill will, or a design causelessly and wantonly to injure plaintiff.” McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 98, see also Lewis, d at 890 (“A qualified privilege is abused and therefore lost if the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant acted with actual malice.”).
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
This privilege extends to investigations of employee misconduct because “the employer has an important interest in protecting itself and the public against dishonest or otherwise harmful employees.” McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97 , (holding that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to submit a malice issue to the jury because the employer’s allegation that the employee had stolen was based in truth, was made with a qualified privilege, and the employee did not pre
Kuechle v. Life's Companion P.C.A., Inc. 653 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kuechle v. Life's Companion P.C.A., Inc. 653 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97 , see Lewis, d at 890 (recognizing qualified privilege applies to statements regarding employees discharge, because of public interest that reasons be available to both discharged employee and prospective employers; without privilege, employers may not inform employees of reaso
Rudebeck v. Paulson 612 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rudebeck v. Paulson 612 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Malice is defined as “actual ill-will or a design causelessly and wantonly to injure plaintiff.” McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 98
Ferrell v. Cross 557 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
Ferrell v. Cross 557 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 96
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
See, e.g., McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 95-97 , -74 (1975) (holding statements privileged; employer had investigated allegations and confronted employee, who admitted wrongdoing); Hebner , 78 Minn, at 293-94, 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
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97
Dorn v. Peterson 512 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Dorn v. Peterson 512 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, see also McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 98-99 , (communication of suspicion to employees investigating alleged misconduct was privileged); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 cmt.
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
“[T]he employer has an important interest in protecting itself and the public against dishonest or otherwise harmful employees.” McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97
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
Frankson, d at 144 (quoting McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 98 , ).
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93 , Otto v. Charles T. Miller Hosp., 262 Minn. 408
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Cf. McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97 , (communications made by employer’s agents during an investigation of employee misconduct are qualifiedly privileged because employer has an interest in protecting itself and the public from dishonest or otherwise harmful employees).
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
In McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93 , for example, an employee was fired for suspected dishonest conduct, but not before she had been investigated.
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
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 95-96
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 306 Minn. 93, 98-99
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
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97
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
McBride v. Sears Roebuck & Company, 306 Minn. 93
Mangan v. Cline 411 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mangan v. Cline 411 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 97
Frankson v. Design Space International 394 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1986
Frankson v. Design Space International 394 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1986
See also McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 99 , (communication of suspicions .to employees investigating misconduct was not actionable because “any publication to any of them was privileged”).
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, e.g., McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 96-97 , (communications between employer’s agents made in the course of investigating or punishing employee misconduct, when made upon a proper occasion and for a proper purpose, are privileged).
Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 96
Kohoutek v. Hafner 366 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kohoutek v. Hafner 366 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 96
Johnson v. Dirkswager 315 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1982