Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hirman v. Rogers, 257 N.W.2d 563.

27 citing documents.

McGuire v. Bowlin 932 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2019
McGuire v. Bowlin 932 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2019
This criterion has its origins in Hirman v. Rogers
Bailey v. City of St. Paul 678 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bailey v. City of St. Paul 678 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Stead-Bowers v. Langley 636 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Stead-Bowers v. Langley 636 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Britton v. Koep 470 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1991
Britton v. Koep 470 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1991
See, Beatty v. Ellings, 285 Minn. 293 , cert.
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The trial court, held that there can be no defamation of a public official by innuendo.
Connelly v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Connelly v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Instead, the defamatory statement must have been published with an awareness of its probable falsity, as demonstrated by “sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” (quoting St.
Diesen v. Hessburg 437 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Diesen v. Hessburg 437 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) (no defamation by general allegations of incompetency of a public official, because protected by the first amendment); (malice cannot be presumed or inferred, but must be actually proven by a public official); Schaefer v. Lynch, 406 So.2d 185 (La.1981) (no defamation because article was factually correct even though written with actual ill will and malice by the rep
Culliton v. Mize 403 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Culliton v. Mize 403 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Again, three public officials brought a defamation action against a non-media defendant as a result of statements relating to a public issue.
Valento v. Ulrich 402 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valento v. Ulrich 402 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hulstrand, Anderson, Larson & Boyland v. Rogers 386 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hulstrand, Anderson, Larson & Boyland v. Rogers 386 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
With respondents representing him, Rogers appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court
Paradise v. City of Minneapolis 297 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1980
Paradise v. City of Minneapolis 297 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1980
Fitzgerald v. Minnesota Chiropractic Ass'n 294 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
Fitzgerald v. Minnesota Chiropractic Ass'n 294 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
1323 , 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), the Supreme Court added that reckless disregard is not measured by what a reasonably prudent man would have published, or investigated before publishing, but instead there must be “sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his pub
Scheibel v. Pavlak 282 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1979

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by