Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252.

283 citing documents.

In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(citing Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., ).
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis Co.
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
It may be “a loss of [a] presently existing advantage, as a discharge from employment,” or “a failure to realize a reasonable expectation of gain, as a denial of employment.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -59 (Minn.1980) (quotation omitted).
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Distinguished Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“In order for a statement to be considered defamatory it must be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, it must be false, and it must tend to harm the plaintiffs reputation and to lower him in the estimation of the community.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
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
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis Co.
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558-59 (1977)).
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
It reaffirms the body of Minnesota case law that provides that “true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
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
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
For a statement to meet the legal standards for defamation, “it must be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis Co.
Rudebeck v. Paulson 612 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rudebeck v. Paulson 612 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis Co., (citations omitted).
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
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis Co., -57 (Minn.1980) (citation omitted).
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.
Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
(citation omitted); see also Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
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
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
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
For a qualified privilege to apply, a statement “‘must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable or probable cause.’” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980) (quoting Hebner v. Great N. Ry., 78 Minn. 289, 292 , 80 N.W.
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
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
A damage verdict may be disturbed only if it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (quoting Carpenter v. Mattison, 300 Minn. 273, 276 , ).
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997